Undercover officer HN18 Robert Hastings (cover name "Robert Harrison") continues his evidence on his 2007 SDS deployment into the activist groups State of Emergency and No Borders and into ISM London. Counsel takes him through his reporting on Carmel Agrexco blockades, the DSEI arms-fair protest for which he was arrested for aggravated trespass, and his surveillance of activist Emily Apple. Repeated challenges concern his intrusive reporting on children, on a female activist's appearance and on legal proceedings, a Reaper 'associates' list placing Atif Choudry beside a named suicide bomber, and disputed official summaries alleging he targeted Fitwatch and de Menezes campaigners.
00:01:59 Mhm.
00:03:54 Mhm.
00:05:49 Mhm.
00:07:44 Mhm.
00:09:39 Mhm.
00:12:13 Good morning everybody. Today's proceedings will be transmitted after the usual 10-minute delay. Those with mobile telephones may
00:12:24 Those with mobile telephones may use them to report what they hear in the hearing room but only after 10 minutes have elapsed since the event that they're reporting. They may not be used for recording or photography. There will be a private hearing which will take
00:12:36 be a private hearing which will take place at the conclusion of the open hearing
00:12:40 hearing so that no one will be required to leave the room and come back in for that purpose.
00:12:46 purpose. Yes.
00:12:47 Yes. Thank you, sir.
00:12:51 Mr. Hastings yesterday in evidence we got to
00:12:55 got to uh
00:12:55 uh February 2007 in the chronology of your deployment and I'd like to pick up there if I may.
00:13:01 if I may. Can we have MPS 0072527
00:13:06 on screen, please? It's behind tab C 126 at the bundle.
00:13:16 This is uh uh bundle five.
00:13:24 MPS 0072527
00:13:29 Can you see that on your screen? yes. Thank you. And this is in relation to a blockade at Carmel Agrexco on the 11th February 2007.
00:13:43 It was a Sunday and it appears that about 10 to 15 people, a small group of primarily
00:13:51 primarily state of emergency activists attended at the site.
00:13:59 In paragraph page two, please.
00:14:06 Paragraph one.
00:14:14 Do you do you recall this event? Does this stand out in your memory as one that you attended? Okay. Is it fair to say that at Carmel Agrexco it was a real target for protests and
00:14:26 it was a real target for protests and they'd often be staged protests outside, people
00:14:30 people holding banners or placards? It was certainly a point of interest, place of interest because of the obvious link that existed or that had been identified between the business and Israel.
00:14:41 between the business and Israel. Okay. And so on occasion there would be direct action by certain activists and on other occasions there would be just people who were interested in making
00:14:52 making their opinions known about it, raising awareness about the activities of the the company. Those are two slightly different things. You've got the the notion of taking action would necessarily ordinarily
00:15:03 action would necessarily ordinarily require presence being there. The fact of highlighting the fact of the business and what it was identified as having been done could be done elsewhere by way of the internet, etc. Okay. Were there occasions where
00:15:15 Were there occasions where members of the public that might not otherwise be seen as activists in in way that um you've reported on activists as a part of a group would attend outside of the premises.
00:15:26 would attend outside of the premises. Often children
00:15:31 Do you recall that? Certainly within the activities that I can't recall any, but I am aware that there were when you had the the camp Heathrow against Heathrow you had a large group of individuals who congregated there and there was at least
00:15:42 congregated there and there was at least one action that or not an action, but there was a some kind of demonstration that took place. Necessarily that would have had activists there, but also it might have had other people there who were not would not ordinarily be considered as activists.
00:15:59 You comment here in this paragraph that on the Sunday um
00:16:04 um there'll be a covert action
00:16:11 to take direct action against Carmel Agrexco
00:16:15 Agrexco rather than attending the staged and compliant demonstration on Saturday where the emphasis was expected to be on maximizing publicity whilst remaining within the law. What what distinction
00:16:26 within the law. What what distinction were you making there between different types of protest? Well, I imagine if it's going to be a cage ordinarily if it's a covert action that might involve for example activists deciding to lock on to the gates of the premises to stop
00:16:38 on to the gates of the premises to stop the business from being able to function.
00:16:43 So the the blockade element of it would be to stop the lorries coming in through the gate and that's from being able to function, yes. Can we have a look at paragraph two, please?
00:16:57 I'll give you a moment just to to read that.
00:16:59 that. Thank you.
00:17:26 Yes. And paragraph three and four, please.
00:17:58 Okay, yeah. Was this the event that you touched upon yesterday in your evidence when you said that the gates opened at one stage, people ran onto the site itself? I'm not I'm not
00:18:10 onto the site itself? I'm not I'm not certain, to be fair. Okay. Is this a Is this an unusual event for demonstrating outside this particular company site? Not especially because the
00:18:21 company site? Not especially because the I think the business had been once I identified there were a number of actions that took place of activists going down there, small groups go down there
00:18:28 there and and say target the business. So, at any particular time it could be anticipated, particularly by the security staff there, that there might be people who are trying to
00:18:40 be people who are trying to raise awareness through such direct action. It wasn't an unusual event in that sense. Well, that's just perhaps that's a question for the security of and and and the actual business itself in terms of what their perception was of the activities that activists were
00:18:51 activities that activists were undertaking. Okay. From your experience and and and reporting on the group they they this was the typical type of event, was it that that would take place? That's
00:19:02 it that that would take place? That's what they would intend to go down there and cause as much annoyance as possible and disrupt the business. Okay. Um you were one of the people that was going to drive one of the cars. There were three cars that were
00:19:13 There were three cars that were attending that day, is that right? Yes. Yes. And you were one of the people that was going to lock on. No, I didn't lock on at all. And the reason I would have done that is because I wouldn't have been prepared to
00:19:24 because I wouldn't have been prepared to be arrested. And the likelihood is, of course, that if you lock on, that you may be arrested. Police will attend to you, you will then be arrested. Um
00:19:33 Um the reference to Rob Snew, is that you? I don't believe so. That's a different Rob, isn't it? Snew. And the reason I say that is because in order to
00:19:44 because in order to um
00:19:46 I'm trying to think of the word. Sanitize the fact of my being there, it would have possibly been useful to put Rob Harrison to obfuscate the fact that I would have been there. So, I presume from that that Rob Snew doesn't refer to me.
00:19:57 me. So, we have reports a little bit later on where Rob Harrison is included, the full name. And then we have some reports where it's Rob Snew. But was there another Rob within the group at the same
00:20:08 another Rob within the group at the same time?
00:20:09 time? And go That's if if the way that I've described the process, that would be what I would assume from this particular report.
00:20:16 report. That there's another person called Rob. Um are you the Rob that's uh Did you say you are Were driving one of the cars? Yes.
00:20:26 Yes. So, are you the Rob there that's referred to as one of the drivers? Yes, that would have been me. So, you are Rob Snew. No, I I'm What I'm say I don't know how this has come about, but I did not The question you're asking me is,
00:20:37 not The question you're asking me is, did I lock on? No. And the reason I didn't lock on is because if I did, there would necessarily be a risk of arrest. I was never arrested outside of Carmelite Gregson.
00:20:48 You weren't arrested. I don't call me being arrested. be arrested if you had locked on? Potentially, yes. When you say potentially, could it be that the Rob you're referring to in this
00:20:59 that the Rob you're referring to in this report was you? You did lock on, but you didn't actually get arrested. No.
00:21:05 No. I've no recollection of locking on at Carnegy Gresco. And who was the Rob then that did lock on? Do you recall? No.
00:21:17 And were you at this event You were clearly at this event. You drove one of the cars. Yes, I I I drove the car certainly and in fact written the report that suggests I was in a position to be there to do so. And what was the extent of your
00:21:29 what was the extent of your engagement in the activity? To the best of my recollection would have been to go along, to take part, and to support as best as possible other activists who were present.
00:21:40 were present. What did you do in terms of supporting other activists? Very often that might include, for example, being verbally um supportive of them, the individuals who decided to place themselves in discomfort by locking onto the gates.
00:21:56 At least two security guards were there. Is that right? I can't recall. Okay. Is it mentioned in the report? The number of guards? We can have a look at paragraph
00:22:07 uh four. Is it paragraph the next one? Yeah. Yes, it was paragraph four.
00:22:19 Yeah. Uh physical opposition from two security guards. So, at least two were present.
00:22:25 present. Any more that you recall? Not that I can recall, no. Reliance on police uh arriving at the scene.
00:22:34 Were you waiting for police to attend? Was I waiting for them? No, but there would have been a I suspect that activists there was always They would have been mindful of the fact there was a possibility that police would attend.
00:22:45 a possibility that police would attend. And can you recall how many did attend on this occasion? Police or activists? Police. No. The role of the police at these events, was that generally to facilitate lawful
00:22:56 was that generally to facilitate lawful protest, or is it to provide security for the company? I think that would largely be a decision for the police officers present. Okay. what did you experience from being there?
00:23:07 experience from being there? On this particular event or generally? On this particular event, what did you witness? I can't recall.
00:23:15 Three people were arrested. If we go to page three, please.
00:23:25 Paragraph one.
00:23:30 Can see three people were arrested. It appears that those were the people that had made their way through the gates onto the premises.
00:23:45 Okay.
00:23:48 And the key had been used to unlock the D locks around the necks and and stop the blockade.
00:23:56 The blockade effectively came to an end and at that point the activists were joined by privacy who had who had come on behalf of indymedia.
00:24:07 And so that was a publicized event. That was the purpose of these events, wasn't it? To publicize Well, indymedia has indymedia could be used by activists to put information out.
00:24:18 put information out. Believe the amount of information that the activists might choose to make available through that site could obviously differ. And in terms of how much disruption was caused, can you give us a sense of
00:24:30 caused, can you give us a sense of what actually happened on the day? Well, having read I've not read the the the report in its entirety to today, I should say. Forgive me. If if we take down the
00:24:41 If if we take down the the large paragraph and you can read the rest of it.
00:25:09 Okay.
00:25:12 In terms of the type and extent of disruption, what what sort of disruption was caused? Looking at this, the disruption is appears to be principally to the business. And can you recall how many lorries were
00:25:25 And can you recall how many lorries were were stopped entering the premises on that day, if any? No.
00:25:32 Is it right that the company didn't want to press charges because they didn't want the matter going to court? I I don't know what the position of the company would have been.
00:25:44 Um and in any event, it was relatively uh low-level offending. People were arrested, you say, in relation to um offenses relating to obstruction.
00:25:55 um offenses relating to obstruction. That's on the second line at the top of the page. I don't quite know whether um the activists themselves regard it as being low-level in terms of being arrested. It would depend on how they themselves viewed being arrested. In
00:26:06 themselves viewed being arrested. In terms of the overall disruption caused to the business, it clearly isn't something that's that's caused a massive problem, perhaps. Okay. Um in terms of obstruction, it's
00:26:18 Um in terms of obstruction, it's when you say the impact of that, I'm just thinking about the the the level of sentencing. It's a low-level offense, isn't it?
00:26:25 isn't it? Presumably, yes. Can we have a look at MPS0072795,
00:26:32 please?
00:26:42 And this is in relation to M19. This is the
00:26:46 the the 19th of March event that was being planned.
00:26:51 There was a meeting about that on Tuesday the 13th of March 2007. So, about a week before Yeah.
00:27:00 On page two, please. The last three paragraphs.
00:27:08 This effectively sets out what the group were planning to do. And it related to protesting outside Bearing Point.
00:27:48 Okay. And another event that evening which or on the evening just before the 19th which would involve writing slogans on the front of Labour Party constituency
00:28:00 the front of Labour Party constituency buildings saying your party, your war. Yes.
00:28:04 Yes. So, couple of events planned. In terms of
00:28:08 of the protest outside Bearing Point, the plan was generally to to small group of people would be outside the company and making some noise
00:28:20 and making some noise drawing attention. Being disruptive. Being disruptive to the extent handing out leaflets to people and that sort of thing, raising awareness again. Well, as as the report says, no collective decisions made regarding
00:28:32 collective decisions made regarding staging specific action on that day. So, what that does clearly is
00:28:36 is allows any decisions to individual actions to be taken by activists themselves who may be present.
00:28:44 In paragraph five, you make reference to Emily Apple. That's a a named individual that appears in your report and you say she may attend and therefore increase security concerns. What did you mean
00:28:57 security concerns. What did you mean about mean by that? Was that in relation to uh uh
00:29:02 to uh uh the group's counter-surveillance concerns or any policing concerns? I was just waiting for that to come on to the highlight the point. Thank you. So, the bottom of Yeah. a paragraph five.
00:29:19 I think my view here would be that certainly within state of emergency, Emily Apple was known.
00:29:26 known. Um there was at least one activist within the group who whom I think we could consider as who at least consider themselves to be close friends with Emily.
00:29:33 Emily. And so, as a result, because Emily was regarded, I think, by some individuals as being a particularly effective activist or certainly had some sense of authority, um her being present would not only
00:29:45 um her being present would not only perhaps be seen to legitimize further what was being undertaken, but also uh they might view it as her presence in it in and of itself might attract surveillance by police or other elements
00:29:58 surveillance by police or other elements within the police. And by surveillance, are you talking about the FIT officers? Possibly. Any other type of surveillance through the police?
00:30:09 the police? Well,
00:30:10 Well, looking at the report,
00:30:14 I think that what I would say here is I'm not certain what I would say is that the perception that activists might have had in terms of the capabilities that may have been avail- may or may not have
00:30:25 may have been avail- may or may not have been available to Special Branch and or other agencies might not always have been in accord with the reality as to what may or may not have been available. But, they certainly would have had a a self-heightened sense that they
00:30:37 self-heightened sense that they themselves would have been of particular importance to the state.
00:30:43 In terms of being of importance to the state, what what do you mean by that? Well, I would imagine that if you have activists who've been arrested perhaps a number of times
00:30:55 arrested perhaps a number of times um within and functioning within a particular milieu or in relation to a particular subject some of them might be of the view that the
00:31:04 the number of times they get arrested would mean necessarily that they're more likely to attract attention from the police because they would necessarily become better known to the police because they'd be arrested, spoken to, identified.
00:31:15 identified. So, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. She then becomes a bit of a target. Is that what you're you're saying? can work that way. Or rather, it could have worked that way. Did you have the sense that that was
00:31:27 Did you have the sense that that was happening
00:31:28 happening uh from your experience of being in the group?
00:31:31 group? No, my my perception would have been that you had individuals whose
00:31:36 whose self-perception as to how important they may have been in res- in regard to the state may not have been may not accord with reality. So, you would
00:31:45 would What I would say to you is that might be possible that some activists may have had a self-inflated, over-inflated sense of self-worth in terms of their importance to the state. Are you suggesting Emily Apple had that?
00:31:56 Are you suggesting Emily Apple had that? I'm suggesting no such thing. That sense about herself? No, I My interaction with Emily Apple as I recall were were
00:32:02 were were very limited. When she gave evidence to the inquiry on Monday of this week, she said that state of emergency, the groups that she was involved with um
00:32:13 involved with um were non-hierarchical. So, she wasn't a leader, but she was very good at coordinating. And involved to that degree. Is that fair? Do you agree with I We've I think
00:32:24 fair? Do you agree with I We've I think to some degree I may have mentioned this previously that in these unlike the traditional left leftist groups where you would have a hierarchy and there's likely to be some form of structure that would be organized on the other side with the anarcho groups or
00:32:35 other side with the anarcho groups or however they would wish to describe themselves it's far more likely that these things would operate by way of consensus decision-making. But, it has to be recognized that necessarily within those groups themselves, Emily, because of activities,
00:32:47 of activities, would
00:32:48 would perhaps be viewed as having a a greater degree of importance within the group because of who she was and what she may have done, and because of the reputation that she might have had. So, she was well a well-respected person within the
00:33:00 well a well-respected person within the the groups that she From the From the people that I interacted with, as to the best of my recollection, who knew Emily, um they certainly regarded her with great um great fondness and respect.
00:33:10 respect. Can we turn to um MPS 0073073,
00:33:17 please?
00:33:24 This is be- behind tab C134 in bundle five.
00:33:30 five. And this is a report on the event of March 19th, 2007.
00:33:39 Just over 19 years ago, on the steps of St. Paul's, people gathered just behind the building we're in now. Um
00:33:48 Um this is an area uh privately owned public land. Is that Was that your understanding? Yeah, I don't I'm not certain I would have considered that at the time of this taking place.
00:33:59 taking place. Um
00:34:01 Um but the company or the offices of of which were the focus of the protest were BearingPoint, situated in Paternoster Square, just by St. Paul's. Yeah. And were you there?
00:34:13 Yeah. And were you there? This would suggest that I was. Wha- Because you wrote the report. Yes.
00:34:20 Yes. Reference to Rob Snew in paragraph three,
00:34:24 three, would that be another Rob in the group? That could be me. This goes back to your earlier question as to whether the reporting is to my presence was consistent throughout, whether it was Rob Harrington, Rob Harrison or Rob Snow.
00:34:37 Right. And the other Rob that you say was in the group, was he there? No. I perhaps should make a clarification here.
00:34:46 here. There's a question here as to whether it was consistent in reporting in terms of whether it's Rob Harrison or Rob Snow. In relation to the earlier report, the action outside of Carmela Gregsco, when you were asking me the question as to whether I was Rob Snow. I know I wasn't
00:34:58 whether I was Rob Snow. I know I wasn't that Rob Snow because I wasn't part I didn't lock on. That's how that distinction's been drawn.
00:35:06 Um in the last report it it appeared that Rob Snow, one of the drivers, That was me.
00:35:12 me. that was you. That was me. But there was another Rob Snow who locked on that you said wasn't you. me because I know I did not lock on as I as I stated. And um obviously
00:35:22 obviously you were the writer of the report. So, you couldn't have got that wrong at the time. Is that what you're saying? You couldn't have said that you locked on if you didn't lock on. Yeah, I'm absolute I'm clear in my own mind that I did not lock on outside of
00:35:34 mind that I did not lock on outside of Carmela Gregsco. And
00:35:37 And is there any sense that you might now have a faded memory about events back then? Your contemporaneous reporting was more reliable and you did in fact lock on. It's just that now, 20-odd years
00:35:49 on. It's just that now, 20-odd years later, you can't remember it. No. I I'm absolutely certain I did not lock on.
00:35:58 The Rob Snow referred to in paragraph three, though on this occasion you think this does relate to you. I would It could be. Is it likely to be you, do you think, recalling this event? Yeah, that's fair.
00:36:16 And what was the atmosphere like at that event?
00:36:19 event? I can't recall. I'd have to refer to the report. Okay. Do you want a moment to read the report? If you bring up page two as well, please.
00:36:55 Okay. And does that trigger a memory for you about the atmosphere and what the activities were of the people that were there? Not especially, I have to say.
00:37:08 You're reporting on this post event. So, that the the activity had happened, then you wrote up your report about it. Yeah. What was the purpose of reporting on an
00:37:20 What was the purpose of reporting on an event like this post event? That would be expected. I was present at an event, so there would clearly be an expectation that I'd be reporting on any events that I attended. And also, it relates to state of emergency and
00:37:31 it relates to state of emergency and their activities. So, it is a matter of record rather than predicting an activity that would inform
00:37:42 predicting an activity that would inform public order policing. Well, this certainly isn't predictive. This is clearly post event. And in terms of post event, obviously there were police there. The police know what happened there. They know the outcome of the event.
00:37:55 They know the outcome of the event. The purpose of your reporting on an occasion like this was to have an ongoing record of events, is it?
00:38:06 events, is it? What what
00:38:07 What what Do you Do you see my point? This isn't This isn't information being collected Yeah.
00:38:27 Please continue. Sorry, I was asking you a number of questions at the same time. No, no, that's not why I paused. Um
00:38:35 Um in terms of this report, it's a post-event report.
00:38:40 report. We understand that the SDS was about uh uh uh
00:38:45 uh uh pre-emptive reporting for the purposes of public order policing in in
00:38:50 in in in large part. That's not their only uh responsibility. the SDS will be providing reporting prior to events taking place. They will also be expected to provide reporting post-event. It's the entire It's the
00:39:01 post-event. It's the entire It's the intelligence picture in its entirety. So, this would be fed up to uh Special Branch or uh CTC as it was by that stage
00:39:12 that stage in order to inform the overall picture of
00:39:15 of the continuing picture intelligence picture that existed in relation to the group and individuals that had been present. So, a report like this wasn't for pre-empting events that would be fed
00:39:27 for pre-empting events that would be fed into public order policing. that that wouldn't be strictly true because, of course, you've got information and that information then you don't know how that information might be utilized or might be of value in the future or might allow those
00:39:38 in the future or might allow those departments and or Special Branch to consider in there is there information that could be useful in the future but in in being predictive to some degree.
00:39:48 The intelligence picture would not have been stable. That's what I'm suggesting. And this helps provide a continual picture of the activities of these groups.
00:39:59 the activities of these groups. Yes.
00:40:01 Yes. In terms of Emily Apple, again, she's uh identified by name. She was one of the people who were arrested at this demonstration. Do you
00:40:12 arrested at this demonstration. Do you recall that? I don't recall it, but if it's recorded here, then that would be a matter of record.
00:40:20 Um. Did you have the sense at the time that Emily Apple was being targeted by police and that is why she was arrested at this on this occasion? No.
00:40:31 on this occasion? No. My interactions with Emily Apple were were very quite limited.
00:40:40 In terms of the disruption that was caused, can you give us a sense of who was disrupted and to what extent people's day was they were disrupted?
00:40:52 people's day was they were disrupted? Excuse me. Forgive me. Um, looking at this
00:40:55 this you've got rhythms of resistance in attendance which clearly indicates excuse me, to my mind that there was a design for them to be a focal point um, possibly as a possible point of
00:41:06 um, possibly as a possible point of agitation
00:41:08 agitation to attract other people to the noise or the or what they what they mean with the music that they were making. So, they are there to act as a point of attraction to members of the public and also potentially other activists.
00:41:24 A- An- Anything further in terms of disruption? N- Not I can't go beyond the report, but looking at this report it I'm not certain that there was a huge amount of disruption caused.
00:41:35 disruption caused. Can we have a look at MPS 0731256,
00:41:39 please?
00:41:47 This is a report. It's dated the 26th of March, 2007, but it it relates to um, events
00:41:59 that connected with the M19 event. And in particular, looking at paragraph two, this is the the evening before
00:42:15 Monday of March the 19th at 2007
00:42:20 at 2007 when
00:42:22 when members of the the group were in intending to go out and paint slogans on the Labour uh party constituency offices. just seems to be post on examining the actions undertaken by members of Have I
00:42:34 actions undertaken by members of Have I misunderstood you? Uh No, that's all right. It's the It's a report from the 26th of March, so it is post uh Monday uh the 19th of March. But, it's looking at what happened on
00:42:46 But, it's looking at what happened on that that night.
00:42:52 And do you recall being a party to the those events on the night of the the 18th to the 19th of March? Yes.
00:43:01 Yes. Um
00:43:02 Um you say at paragraphs two to three on this page that Emily Apple had been invited to to uh engage with this action.
00:43:13 this action. And if we go on to page two, please.
00:43:19 She actually according to your report, showed little interest in going out, and so she didn't attend on this event. Is that right? That would appear to be as has been suggested. And in fact, in
00:43:31 as has been suggested. And in fact, in Emily's own uh evidence, she said she has no recollection of this at all and probably wasn't uh there at the time. She'd have been traveling from a a different location where she was living at the
00:43:42 location where she was living at the time. That may well have been true. I think looking at this report, all we can say is Privacy had indicated that he had asked.
00:43:49 asked. So, that's a second-hand report, if you like, not direct reporting. So, you you certainly hadn't seen Emily No. overnight. No. And so, this is a a a a
00:44:01 a a reporting on somebody's uh the fact that he had invited Emily to attend. Yes, but what it also does is it indicates or reinforces the
00:44:12 does is it indicates or reinforces the fact that there is a relationship that exists between the person stating that spoken to Emily Apple. That in itself indicates that they're able to speak and that it this individual is such
00:44:24 that it this individual is such is known to that is known to Apple is able therefore to extend an invitation to her.
00:44:31 In terms of what happened with the the plan to go out and paint the slogans, is it right that it was relatively unsuccessful um small groups of people were going out in
00:44:44 small groups of people were going out in twos and threes and actually it was you in your group that was one of the successful uh a parties to actually
00:44:55 uh a parties to actually uh write the slogans on a building. Do you recall doing that? No, it's it was small groups deliberately in order to minimize um
00:45:04 um I think about this time to minimize or to maximize security, shall we say, for those taking part in these in in these actions.
00:45:12 actions. And in terms of who actually went out, uh was it not as big a group as you thought it was going to be? I mean my recollection my recollection would be that I went out there were small individual groups and I was part
00:45:24 small individual groups and I was part of a small group that went out in East London.
00:45:27 London. We can see on paragraph three of page two that the South London group consisting of Rob Snew and uh three others enjoyed a degree of success,
00:45:40 enjoyed a degree of success, but also reported that very many of the premises had been incorrectly identified. So, was that that you were arriving at a a site, but actually it wasn't a Labour Party building at all?
00:45:52 wasn't a Labour Party building at all? Possibly. I I can't say. Do you recall how many times you uh uh wrote the slogan on a building? I don't do admitted to writing the slogan on a building. So, you didn't personally do
00:46:04 building. So, you didn't personally do that?
00:46:04 that? recall doing so. Who uh
00:46:08 Who uh How many times did your group write slogan on a building? I can't recall, but I I certainly wouldn't have be I maybe once or twice perhaps, but I can't give a a definitive number.
00:46:20 can't give a a definitive number. But, your evidence is that you didn't actually write I don't recall doing so. What was it? Paint? Was it a spray can? Presumably it would have been some kind of spray can. Okay.
00:46:36 But, you left that to others to do, did you? I don't recall spray spraying anything, unless it's reported in later. Do you have a later report that suggests that's the case or I was arrested? no we don't. All we have is is this.
00:46:47 no we don't. All we have is is this. We're just asking for your memory of that.
00:46:49 that. recollect
00:46:51 recollect undertaking what presumably you would be described as criminal damage. Well, it it probably would be. Yeah. Yeah. But, you you regardless of who actually held the paint can anyway, that
00:47:03 actually held the paint can anyway, that what what I'm just asking for is what actually happened. What do you recall about?
00:47:07 about? I my I recall that my my primary role would have been as I had the car would be to drive individuals so that they could then undertake what it is they wanted to they wished to do. So, you drove around in a car? I had a
00:47:18 So, you drove around in a car? I had a car, yes. I had a vehicle.
00:47:22 Um
00:47:24 What we do know from pay page two paragraph six is that in terms of the arrests of those uh
00:47:34 uh in relation to the March 19th event, the City of London police said it wasn't in the public interest to charge those arrested outside Bearing Point.
00:47:46 arrested outside Bearing Point. Do you recall that happening? Do you recall charges being dropped? No. So, Emily Apple and uh others had been arrested,
00:47:56 arrested, clearly uh taken to custody, charged, but charges later dropped again. Did
00:48:03 Did Were you aware of those events happening relatively often to Emily Apple? Were you aware of the the extent to which she had been arrested?
00:48:11 arrested? Not especially. I think as I I've said earlier, my interactions with Emily Apple were extremely limited.
00:48:22 Can we move, please? Just to put this in context, is it about this time that you disappeared from Maya and Atif Chaudry's life? That's their recollection. Around
00:48:33 life? That's their recollection. Around end of March, Easter time, that's when you
00:48:38 you weren't around as uh as part of their lives. That's That's possible.
00:48:47 Moving on then to April 2007, MPS 0073326,
00:48:53 0073326, it's behind tab C136.
00:49:04 This is in relation to a draft No Borders manifesto. And it's printed out in in full. You can have both pages up.
00:49:18 And
00:49:21 the intention was to have a manifesto. This was to be published. Is that your sense that they wanted people to know what No Borders was all about? Again, it's a public awareness
00:49:33 it's a public awareness uh campaign. Well, it looks as if, as I say, it's a draft for something that presumably is intended for uh wider circulation at some point in the future. And by circulation, would that be on websites or flyers or what sort of
00:49:45 websites or flyers or what sort of circulation would that have involved? Possibly as wide as possible.
00:49:50 Was there any less intrusive way of finding out this information than other than by a UCA? That wouldn't be That wouldn't be for me to decide.
00:50:01 to decide. So, although information would become public, it was your understanding that you were to report that to the on this because it's it relates to No Borders.
00:50:10 Borders. And in terms of No Borders, looking at their objectives here in terms of their manifesto, there's no surprise in terms of what their objectives were as a group.
00:50:21 objectives were as a group. There's no hidden agenda with No Borders. Well, if What I would say is if a group is going to publish a public-facing document, that is not to say that behind the public-facing
00:50:32 say that behind the public-facing document or manifesto, however however you would prefer to it, um that doesn't
00:50:38 doesn't negate the possibility that actions can take place outside and beyond the stated intentions of this draft. And from your experience having spent time with No Borders, was there a
00:50:50 time with No Borders, was there a significant hidden agenda to their activities? What I would say is that different activists would necessarily have a different appetite and willingness and exposure to risk in regard to being
00:51:02 exposure to risk in regard to being arrested.
00:51:04 arrested. And was that significant to you? Did that become apparent in the time that you spent with No Borders? I think certainly I can recall towards the end of my deployment um discussions
00:51:16 of my deployment um discussions I just I can recall at least one discussion that took place where individual members of No Borders were considering what action they might take in regard to aircraft flying out of the UK
00:51:27 UK um possibly taking individuals out of the UK being deported perhaps. And and what was their discussion about that?
00:51:34 that? As to what it was a consideration of what actions they might actually take. It was very early stages when that meeting took place. And that was at the point at which your deployment started to come to an end, was it?
00:51:44 was it? if I recall, my my deployment was pretty much moving towards its close. And do do you have any further detail about that? I don't think that's part of a report. You
00:51:56 a report. You It should be cuz I would have reported it. Okay, we can have a look at for that.
00:52:01 that. Um
00:52:03 Um can we have on screen, please, MPS 0073461?
00:52:15 It's be behind tabs uh C 139, a report from the 20th of April, 2007.
00:52:24 And it's a report on a an individual. Yeah.
00:52:28 Yeah. And do you see paragraph two, the description given has a height, buxom, with shoulder-length curly black hair, and unusually for an activist, appears
00:52:40 and unusually for an activist, appears to be black or possibly mixed race. In terms of that description, would you recognize that terminology like buxom is sexually
00:52:54 like buxom is sexually uh sexual language and sexually discriminatory? No.
00:52:58 No. In what way? It's descriptive. It's merely descriptive of the physical characteristics of an individual. Why put that into uh a report like this? Because I would wish to provide as
00:53:09 Because I would wish to provide as accurate physical description of an individual as possible. The language used, is that the type of language that would have been used in the SDS offices when talking about women?
00:53:20 women? No, I can't account for that. I can simply say that's obviously the language that I've used within the body of this report.
00:53:25 report. And it's specifically referring to uh a woman's breasts, is it? It's relating to it. It's making reference to her physical characteristics.
00:53:36 physical characteristics. Um
00:53:37 Um that
00:53:38 that and you decided that was important in putting that into the report. of the
00:53:42 of the in in the entirety of the description, yes.
00:53:47 Can we have a look at MPS 0073518?
00:53:56 It's a report of the 6th of May 2007. And it's report on Emily Apple and her intentions travel to Germany for G8 protests.
00:54:10 Did you know whether Emily Apple was known
00:54:14 known by other SDSUCOs? Yes.
00:54:17 Yes. Was she discussed at SDS meetings? I believe so, but I've got no distinctive memory of that. But she was certainly, I believe, was in one of the
00:54:29 certainly, I believe, was in one of the SDS officers, I believe. May have been um
00:54:33 um targeted, or she may have been someone within the groups to which that SDS officer
00:54:37 officer had been directed. And do you recall which officer that was?
00:54:41 was? I have Was that HM118, Simon Wellings? No, I don't believe that that was his primary HM3?
00:54:51 Sorry.
00:55:24 His cover name Jason Bishop. Yes, forgive me. Yes. Sorry, I'm That's all right. This is a long list. Um and so, would he speak about her in
00:55:36 Um and so, would he speak about her in SDS meetings when he's talking about his deployment. I think certainly my initial awareness of of the name Emily Apple would have come about by perhaps some of the discussions that may have taken place within the back office. And so did that mean that you were
00:55:48 And so did that mean that you were specifically looking out for information about Emily Apple? Not specifically. No, not specifically. What would have happened is although I may have been familiar with the name
00:55:59 familiar with the name my I would have reported on Emily in the same way that I would have reported on anyone who would have come across within the realms, the environs of the groups that I was reporting on. Did you receive any feedback from SDS
00:56:10 Did you receive any feedback from SDS managers about reporting on her and the extent to which they were interested in her? I don't recall No, I certainly don't recall being specific or I would say I don't recall being tasked
00:56:21 say I don't recall being tasked against or being asked to target Emily Apple.
00:56:25 Apple. Did you have a sense with the limited
00:56:30 experience you had, contact you had with Emily Apple, did you get the sense of her being
00:56:36 her being a
00:56:37 a a threat to public order or safety? What kind of a risk did she pose as far as you were concerned? I wouldn't necessarily been in the best place to to report on that. I can only report in terms of how I saw and also on the
00:56:48 terms of how I saw and also on the perception of Emily but of other activists, how they perceived her in terms of her importance. She was clearly regarded um with a great deal of respect and affection by by activists.
00:57:04 Uh Can we turn to page Oh, sorry. MPS 0073517.
00:57:18 This is report of the 6th of May 2007 behind tabs at C143.
00:57:28 A disarm dicey meeting on the 28th of April 2007 at the University of London Union.
00:57:39 This meeting was a public meeting. Paragraph one on page one.
00:57:49 Yeah. And
00:57:52 And paragraph two, we know that FIT were in attendance. Is that right? It's going to the report, that's the case.
00:58:01 Uh they were outside the building. Did they come into the building at all, or is it that they were placed outside the building?
00:58:08 building? I can't recall.
00:58:16 Uh And in terms of this meeting, were you present inside, or did you see events outside
00:58:24 outside in relation to the FIT team?
00:58:27 Looking at the way this report has been written, I think it's fair to say that I would have been inside the room. Um there's clearly reference to some kind of
00:58:35 kind of commotion taking place outside.
00:58:40 It's not clear from the way that report is written as as to whether I was outside or not. Okay. Were you You spoke about FIT team yesterday following following you around
00:58:51 yesterday following following you around Parliament Square at the uh Sack Parliament event. Yes, which effectively meant
00:58:56 meant usefully for me, it meant that whilst they were following me, of course, I couldn't undertake or get involved in any other actions that may have developed during that day. Were you aware of the dissent that activists felt harassed or intimidated
00:59:09 activists felt harassed or intimidated by the FIT team, and that they were disrupting events, quite lawful events of people coming together to organize? I can certainly recall that
00:59:21 recall that the activists were aware of foot certainly aware of the Forward Intelligence Team. Um
00:59:27 Um I can't necessarily say how the fitting regarded themselves and what they were meant to do, but there was clearly some form of animosity that existed between the activist and fit.
00:59:39 In terms of the intention to protest outside Dicey in the September, would it be fair to say that the police anticipated that there would be protests
00:59:50 anticipated that there would be protests as they had been in previous years? Yes. And so were you directly targeted to find out exactly what the intentions were? That would
01:00:01 what the intentions were? That would have been If If that came across, if I was able to discover that, then I obviously would have reported that. Was that a direct verbal target targeting, or is that something you took
01:00:12 targeting, or is that something you took upon yourself? That would have That would have been part of general expectation as to what my reporting would consist of.
01:00:20 On page two, paragraph four, very last paragraph, you say at the end that people then dissipated after the the meeting. Some
01:00:31 dissipated after the the meeting. Some went off to the pub. And
01:00:36 And that or the the the union bar. And that social interaction gave Emily Apple the opportunity to undertake the role of matriarch for the benefit of those present. And why did you describe
01:00:49 those present. And why did you describe her as a a matriarch? Well, I think that would be as I've said earlier, Emily was regarded as a strong female figure. Someone with very strong sense of of who she was and with a very strong sense of
01:01:00 she was and with a very strong sense of her ability and willingness to to to challenge the state. So, she and also she was I I always had the impression when I did um when I did see her that there was she was very protective towards other
01:01:11 was very protective towards other activists. Did you have the sense that the word matriarch in this context might be seen as a a sexist? No, not for me. I think I I that's I think matriarch in that sense
01:01:22 I that's I think matriarch in that sense is an act is is it would be an accurate description as to the perception of Emily within the within the activist field. Would you have described a male activist as a patriarch? Possibly.
01:01:35 as a patriarch? Possibly. And and the sense being that they were that that the leader. They were imposing their rule. no, in more in the sense of as I say, she was I think she was regarded as a strong
01:01:45 strong strong woman, independently minded, protective, possibly in relation to some activist possibly nurturing. She clearly had long-standing relationships with some activists and there was real from what I
01:01:56 activists and there was real from what I when I saw it, there was real what appeared to be real credible love that existed between those activists and Emily when she was around. In terms of the language used, are you sure that you would describe a male
01:02:09 sure that you would describe a male uh in in that way? possibly. I said possibly. Is that realistic? Yes, I said possibly.
01:02:16 Um the one of the big events that you your groups were looking to attend was the G8 summit in Germany
01:02:27 was the G8 summit in Germany over the summer in June. Do you recall that? I'm not certain I would describe that that that description would be accurate. Okay, in what way is that inaccurate? I was certainly of the impression that G8 was clearly an event
01:02:39 impression that G8 was clearly an event that was taking place, but for quite some time I think my as I reported, I think my view was that most a lot of activists didn't appear initially that interested in going out to Germany.
01:02:51 out to Germany. We have a travel authority for you, which is at MPS0073596
01:02:59 behind tab B84 in bundle three.
01:03:09 Did you have sight of this authority to travel? I don't believe so.
01:03:18 And you understood the the purpose of you traveling to the G8 Summit generally. Well, initially there I'm not certain that that I was going to go. I might think my going there was decided
01:03:29 might think my going there was decided principally after a conversation with um one of the inspectors on SDS. And that would be at DI 72? Yes.
01:03:39 Yes. Can we have a look at page two, please?
01:03:47 In terms of CW Common Wheels plan of action, we can see that you'll be traveling with a group of activists. This was the intention to Hamburg.
01:03:59 And that you would then be based at the Fish Harbour activists camp.
01:04:08 Okay, yeah. Do you recall that? I certainly recall being based in the camp whilst I was there. Um
01:04:15 Um we understand that um H and 18 was part of the Radelich activists camp. Do you recall other UCOs being out in Germany? That's why I mentioned the word camp and
01:04:26 That's why I mentioned the word camp and didn't specifically identify the camp because certainly I can recall that that particular officer and I were on the or within the same camp.
01:04:39 Sorry, just to clarify, that was which which officer was that? Wellens. Wellens 118. Okay. Any other officers that you were aware of in Germany?
01:04:50 of in Germany? From SDS?
01:04:52 From SDS? I don't believe so. Um what about officers from MPOIU? That would have been an entirely separate matter. I wouldn't have been informed of that was their intention, whether
01:05:03 that was their intention, whether officers were going to be deployed, whether officers were present. Would you have recognized other UCOs from
01:05:10 from MPOIU?
01:05:12 MPOIU? In retrospect, I recall seeing Mark Kennedy
01:05:17 Kennedy on a train
01:05:20 in um in Germany. What about Marco Jacobs? Do you Do you recall seeing him? No, but I recall that that he had certainly attended a meeting in London at which I was present prior
01:05:32 in London at which I was present prior to going to Germany. Um any other officers being careful about names now? Not that I can recall unless she used to provide me with an indication to refresh
01:05:43 provide me with an indication to refresh my memory. Um
01:05:47 Um do you recall seeing Mark Kennedy or Marco Jacobs at the event? I I certainly recall seeing Mark Kennedy, forgive me, um on a train. Okay. But that's the extent of it, is
01:05:59 Okay. But that's the extent of it, is it?
01:05:59 it? Yes, he's he he was he stood out. Do you recall seeing him in the presence of other women? Were you of the understanding that he had a girlfriend
01:06:10 understanding that he had a girlfriend or
01:06:11 or or sexual partner out there? When I saw Mark, he was standing on the train and didn't appear to be accompanied by anybody.
01:06:23 Did you become aware of other officers in Germany who had partners? No. The only person I spoke to whilst I was
01:06:34 The only person I spoke to whilst I was in the camp was Simon Wellings who effectively had to stage an intervention to speak to me whilst I was in the in the camp. And and and what was that about? Is that something you can speak about openly?
01:06:47 something you can speak about openly? Well, I I think it's fair to say my um prior to going out to Germany um
01:06:54 um I would I think it's fair to say that I was not in a good space mentally and physically. And I'd had a conversation with um I think Dr. Palmer perhaps. During the course of that from that that
01:07:06 During the course of that from that that session, Dr. Palmer stated to me, "You are obviously quite depressed." Um but I think there was obviously a great deal of pressure on Special Branch to provide intelligence on the events in Germany.
01:07:19 intelligence on the events in Germany. So, I had the meeting with um the inspector that we've mentioned. And it was then agreed that I would go to Germany um and perhaps have a rest when I came back.
01:07:29 back. During the meeting with Dr. Palmer, I think his concern was that I should be um issued with medication to perhaps help with what was going on at the time.
01:07:40 Uh
01:07:43 We can come to that because I'm going to address your welfare a little bit later. So, we can uh speak speak in more detail about that, but did that have it
01:07:53 it it
01:07:56 If that didn't have an impact on you actually attending, you did attend. I I attended I attended you had a rest period after for a few weeks. Is that right? as I as I recall, there was certainly some form of rest period when I came back, however truncated it may have
01:08:08 back, however truncated it may have been.
01:08:11 And I did attend, but my attendance was based
01:08:14 based I think more so on the of sense of personal loyalty to that inspector. Without perhaps due regard to my health at the time. Okay.
01:08:27 We looked at um the CW's plan of action on this on this page. About halfway down, it says, "In this way, SDS have good coverage of the two main camps and a clear overview of the protesters'
01:08:38 a clear overview of the protesters' plans, movements, and general mood at any time." Was that your understanding of your tasking that you were to generally monitor what was going on in the camps at the events out there? It
01:08:50 the camps at the events out there? It would be my my my own understanding. I didn't write this report clearly, but my own understanding would be that I would report back on events and people as I would have done if I was within the UK.
01:09:02 would have done if I was within the UK. Was it broad brush tasking or were you specifically tasked at any particular person?
01:09:09 person? I don't recall being specifically tasked.
01:09:14 Can we look, please, at MPS0073891,
01:09:20 which is a report from the 1st of June 2007.
01:09:25 2007. Again, we have a report saying Emily Apple and VSP were traveling to Hamburg.
01:09:40 Again, is Emily Apple reported on because she is known and her movements were being monitored? In this sense, it would have been the fact that she was a known activist, so therefore I would report
01:09:51 activist, so therefore I would report necessary report on any information I had relating to her. And that information you came about through other people. I would imagine well, given the fact, as I said, that I was not
01:10:03 was not a close associate of Emily Apple, this presumably has come to me by way of um another activist.
01:10:10 There's a similar report. I don't need to bring this up, um but it's from September 2007. 21st September 2007, where you report that Emily Apple, VSP and another are on
01:10:23 that Emily Apple, VSP and another are on route to the No Borders Camp near Gatwick.
01:10:27 Gatwick. Um I understand you you didn't attend that camp in Gatwick, is that right? No, I did. Oh, you did. Yes. Um and uh from this report, you're reporting again Emily Apple's and VSP's movements.
01:10:40 again Emily Apple's and VSP's movements. So, was there a sense that uh
01:10:44 uh these people were being tracked and monitored, even their movements, not just their not just their attendance at engagement in activities, but their movements to and from places? I I it's fair to say that certainly
01:10:56 I I it's fair to say that certainly their and and understand is their movements would have formed part of the overall intelligence picture. It's also worth mentioning that um VSP
01:11:06 VSP had attended a meeting which I was present
01:11:08 present um in London where discussions had taken place as to what sort of activities might take place once in Germany.
01:11:18 And and for that reason then she They would They would have been part of the activist milieu, so therefore I would have reported them any information that was available regarding them.
01:11:27 Um and so they are then a legitimate target in your view for wide-range reporting. I certainly would have viewed them as as such at the time. Can we have a look at another Carmela
01:11:38 Can we have a look at another Carmela Grecco event, please? It's on the MPS 0731222.
01:11:51 It's behind tab C154 in bundle five.
01:11:58 It's a an event on the 16th or a report from the 16th of July 2007.
01:12:06 And this relates to an action at Carmela Grecco
01:12:09 Grecco in Hayes.
01:12:11 in Hayes. We can see from paragraph two on this page that it's a non-violent action.
01:12:31 And again to disrupt vehicles going in and out of the the warehouse. I think there is a point to be raised here, which would be whatever the intention of the activists
01:12:43 whatever the intention of the activists present gaining access to the location tending to be non-violent. Of course, it's not possible to determine what the reaction might be from security maybe present on scene.
01:12:57 When you say you can't determine what the security guard is going to do, what what do you mean? Why is that of interest? Well, because it may very well be that whilst activists might enter into a situation in what they presume to be a non-violent way or seeking not to
01:13:09 be a non-violent way or seeking not to provoke any form of physical violent reaction,
01:13:12 reaction, it's not within their control, of course, in terms of how any security should be possible should be present how they the security may indeed um react.
01:13:23 You report in paragraph three in relation to Gus again and the fact that he's accompanied by his daughter and you note her name and her
01:13:34 and you note her name and her approximate age.
01:13:39 And why was it important to be reporting on a child? Because she was present there with an activist.
01:13:48 Can we um go on to the next page, please?
01:13:56 You can see at paragraph three of page two
01:14:03 that activists were able to access the warehouse and they put flyers inside some of the packaged goods.
01:14:13 Do you recall reporting that? Yeah.
01:14:19 And was that essentially, as far as we can see here
01:14:25 it is a lock onto a parked lorry trailer.
01:14:31 That's the extent of the activists I would appear to be I would appear to be the case. You note at paragraph four on page two
01:14:43 You note at paragraph four on page two that Gus and his daughter remained outside throughout. And again, reporting on them and their particular movements, why was that important given that they weren't
01:14:56 important given that they weren't doing anything of any particular note? It might as I say, it's because that individual Gus was an activist. I mean, some might question for example, why you have an action and you're taking a 12-year-old along to such a thing
01:15:07 a 12-year-old along to such a thing given the fact they may protect there's always the risk potential or there's a potential risk that it might not go as peaceably as they might wish. We can see here paragraph five, there were no arrests.
01:15:19 Lasted about four hours.
01:15:23 Caused some embarrassment and ended spontaneously. Do you recall um the police attending? I don't recall it, but it it's reported here then. That would That would suggest
01:15:35 here then. That would That would suggest it took place they were there, yeah. And in terms of the police's reactions and their actions, do you have any memory of that? Do you have any independent recollection? Not have any special memory, no.
01:15:48 have any special memory, no. Can we have a look at the source comment, please?
01:15:56 We can see that Gus's Gus and his daughter
01:15:59 daughter I'm sorry. Um
01:16:03 Um Yeah, that's in that's in relation to another proposed action in December which was to provoke an arrest. And this what uh Well, Gus, if my if my memory's correct
01:16:14 memory's correct memory serves me um
01:16:18 correctly, I would say that Gus I believe was the individual who claims to be the individual within activist circles that are identified that that company Gregsco was involved in the importation of goods from from from
01:16:29 importation of goods from from from Israel.
01:16:31 Israel. And specifically the occupied territories in Israel, that was the the point of the the demonstration, is that right? That would clearly have been informed.
01:16:41 informed. And so there's there's almost an intention to be arrested to get the day in court as as we've heard before to try and raise awareness through the courts. I think that's that
01:16:52 through the courts. I think that's that would have been how I I suspect Gus would have that would have been how they they would have described and understood their own purpose and intentions. And do you recall that happening?
01:17:04 And do you recall that happening? I don't know unless you've got a do you have a a record of an arrest taking place or Not of a
01:17:12 of a trial. I don't know. I don't know. Unless what I would say however is that given my proximity to Gus if he had been arrested
01:17:21 arrested there's a likelihood that I may have reported it. You don't recall any any event in relation to that separately. You don't have any independent recollection of that.
01:17:31 that. Nothing springs to mind immediately, no. In terms of the research we've got Gus and his daughter. It looks like she has been researched which is the box below.
01:17:42 been researched which is the box below. If you can just highlight that please. Sorry, you able to remove Thank you. And it seems that she's
01:17:52 a note next to her name saying unable to identify which would suggest that there's been some research into her name. Would that be right? Possibly. That would be but of course that would
01:18:03 That would be but of course that would have been undertaken independently of me. That would have been undertaken by a desk officer presumably back at NSY. But you were aware am I right that by putting someone's name in a report that
01:18:15 putting someone's name in a report that would trigger further research? Yes.
01:18:20 Or no. Let me correct that. There was the possibility that it might undertake research might then be undertaken. The key point there the distinction is is with the fact that it's up to the there is a decision to be made on the part of
01:18:31 is a decision to be made on the part of the desk officer as to whether they undertake that research or not. That's entirely outside out my control. And I think we've covered it before, but it enough mentions in the report
01:18:42 it enough mentions in the report would trigger a file being opened. Is that
01:18:44 that I think it's likely that and it's Well, it wouldn't necessarily be based purely on the number of reports, but it would obviously have to take into account the types of reports, what was being reported, the information that was being reported back.
01:18:57 So, it would have So, the decision would have undoubtedly been taken in a a more holistic manner. Can we have a look, please, at NPS series 075251?
01:19:09 series 075251? It's report of the 27th of July 2007 behind tab C163. This is a public meeting at Rampart
01:19:21 in relation to the No Borders Camp to be uh held at Gatwick on the 19th to the 24th of September. Um, this was to be advertised on
01:19:32 Um, this was to be advertised on Indymedia and fit again attended this public meeting. Is that right? You would appear to be the case, yes.
01:19:41 If we can expand this report and have a look at page two as well, please.
01:20:02 Is there a page three as well of this report?
01:20:13 Is there a page three as well?
01:20:21 Five pages. Thank you. Can we Can we just have a look through the five pages?
01:20:35 So in terms of this Intel report, uh
01:20:38 uh there's
01:20:40 there's If if you had you been able to scan over it while it was on the screen? No.
01:20:45 No. Um there's a lot of information about people's backgrounds, funding, organization. There isn't much information at the time because it's a planning event and I
01:20:56 because it's a planning event and I appreciate that, but not much that would help gold command for instance in terms of policing the camp at Gatwick? Not at this time. At this time. Once police
01:21:08 this time. At this time. Once police become aware that there's going to be a camp at Gatwick, does the value of your reporting on this event
01:21:16 event fall away to some degree? No, because clearly um the expectation would be that if you've got a channel of intelligence that's been reported, then that would continue throughout.
01:21:32 Can we have a look, please, at MPS 007 5672?
01:21:49 And this is in relation to No Borders contacting local council and the Crawley District Commander, a chief inspector,
01:22:00 District Commander, a chief inspector, in relation to the No Borders camp. And this is by the 10th of August 2007.
01:22:12 Were you aware of what type of information was being disclosed to the council and to the police in the area? I see it from this it appears that I
01:22:23 see it from this it appears that I wasn't part of any such discussion. You're aware that the meetings are taking place, there's some negotiation. I wouldn't say that. I would say I note
01:22:34 I wouldn't say that. I would say I note the fact of the word apparently at the start.
01:22:37 start. Okay, so you think that although you've reported this. You've reported it, you've come across information in relation to this, but you're not too sure whether those meetings happened. Was there any Did you become aware that
01:22:49 Was there any Did you become aware that those meetings happened at all? Not that I can recall. What I would say unless there's any further reporting I wouldn't be able to comment any further on the specific nature of those meetings because I didn't attend them.
01:23:01 meetings because I didn't attend them. You didn't attend. Is it the sort of thing you might have asked the people involved as to you know, how did that go? What was What was said? What has come out of it? Do we have land available or
01:23:14 Do we have land available or engage with those people that did attend? Well, this says um apparently an activist involved with No Borders Brighton. I've obviously I was affiliated with No Borders London.
01:23:24 London. So, the question is whether I would be able to access any information or not. I don't know. Okay.
01:23:32 Uh is it fair to say that both the council and the police were probably aware of events taking place and had some idea as to the camp and when it was going to be. I
01:23:44 the camp and when it was going to be. I think it's fair to say that the local from this local council would certainly perhaps have had an awareness of the of the fact of there being a camp um
01:23:53 um being present or being proposed to be present at some point in the future.
01:24:03 Um MPS 007030,
01:24:07 please.
01:24:24 The 0076030,
01:24:28 a report of the 30th of August, 2007.
01:24:36 Another report relating to the No Borders camp. And it's a planning meeting at Lark on the 19th of August,
01:24:47 on the 19th of August, 2007.
01:24:50 2007. You can see on page two,
01:24:55 at paragraphs five to six,
01:25:01 that the camp was intended to be child-friendly.
01:25:24 And then there was to be a limited bar, clear rules relating to that. The intention was for people to engage in political debate, not to get drunk.
01:25:35 debate, not to get drunk. I I Well,
01:25:38 I I Well, it's quite strange, isn't it, that anarchists would uh would consider the fact of having to have rules?
01:25:44 That's what you report. Did you understand that to be the intention of the people that were organizing the camp? That's how I would report it. And by this stage, was it clear that
01:25:55 And by this stage, was it clear that there was no intention for serious disorder or serious crime at the event? I would say that what I've done here is try to report to the best of my ability is my understanding of the situation at
01:26:07 is my understanding of the situation at the time of this report. And were were you or did you become concerned at all that this sort of action might be outside of your remit
01:26:18 action might be outside of your remit given what your remit was in your authorities. You mean the fact that this is a rule bound camp, so therefore I wouldn't report on it. No, I'd continue to report on it because it relates to no
01:26:29 to report on it because it relates to no borders and at least one other someone who was known as an sorry, as an activist. Forgive me.
01:26:38 Um MPS 007 5963,
01:26:42 5963, please.
01:26:53 Can see this is a report from the 28th of August 2007.
01:26:58 Relates to a a workshop that was held by members of no borders on the 16th of August.
01:27:09 And here in this report at paragraph two, we can see that Rob Harrison is named. So, this is where at least one report where your full name is included.
01:27:27 And we can see that here it appears that you facilitated a no borders workshop. And this is at climate camp Heathrow. Yes. So, this an earlier camp climate camp fraction at
01:27:39 an earlier camp climate camp fraction at Heathrow.
01:27:42 Heathrow. And was the sense that you were to get
01:27:46 you were to learn from the experiences of that climate camp No, it would it would just be about reporting.
01:27:54 For the the members of no borders, were they
01:27:57 they liaising with people at climate camp at Heathrow in order to look at the no borders camp, the immigration camp? I think I think that it's likely I think it's likely that activists would if
01:28:09 it's likely that activists would if they're known to each each even if they're not again outside of the the organized left, um very often communication between individuals can be based on their personal relationships. It wouldn't be impossible for members
01:28:21 It wouldn't be impossible for members members, if you like, or affiliates of one particular group to be engaged in conversation with another group about any a range of issues. And in terms of your role facilitating
01:28:32 And in terms of your role facilitating the workshop, would it be unusual for you to be in such a position? That certainly was cuz I can recall that what happened on that day with this. Yeah. And what did you cover during that workshop? I can't recall. It was What I
01:28:44 workshop? I can't recall. It was What I would say, though, is
01:28:47 I was never intending to be a facilitator, and I think it was very much a last-minute um stepping
01:28:58 on my part.
01:29:01 Um
01:29:05 can I just ask you finally about one Carmel LeGrec's go protest. It's the one on the 18th of August 2007. There is a report
01:29:16 There is a report um 0075779.
01:29:38 I'll give you a moment just to have a look at that.
01:30:06 Okay. And we can see that your full name is as noted there. So, you you were there, you were in attendance, obviously, and you wrote the report. What? Um Okay.
01:30:17 Okay. Sorry, do you want to make a comment on that? No.
01:30:23 It appears people were arrested for burglary
01:30:27 burglary in this report, released without charge. And the reason I wanted to flag this report is because in a later Reaper authorization, if we can go to that, please.
01:30:39 if we can go to that, please. Three
01:30:40 Three at behind uh tab B54 MPS 0526935
01:30:48 at page 44. It's behind uh uh tab B54 in bundle three.
01:31:03 The third bullet point.
01:31:17 No, I don't think it's I don't think it's the third bullet point.
01:31:32 So, where am I looking?
01:31:41 Ah, yes, it was Sorry, it was the third bullet point, halfway down. It relates to a an event where about 30 activists attended at Carmela Gresco's site in Hayes.
01:31:52 site in Hayes. Prompt police action resulted in a handful of arrests for burglary, later arrested without charge, and numerous activists were stopped and searched. The intelligence that you provided is
01:32:03 The intelligence that you provided is noted as being vital in the preparation of briefings for Commander K and Public Order Branch CO11. And Commander K and CO11 have been most
01:32:14 And Commander K and CO11 have been most appreciative of support of C Squad. And these were noted as being very high-profile public order events. Um there's also reference to to to the some
01:32:26 there's also reference to to to the some DII as well, which we'll come on to in in in a moment. But in relation to Carmela Grecsko at that event, did you understand that your reporting was seen as being vital to
01:32:40 reporting was seen as being vital to public order policing? No. Was that ever fed back to you? No. Not that I recall it ever being fed back to me, no.
01:32:55 Moving on then to the that same paragraph again relates to uh the the DII reporting and the value that it was said to hold in
01:33:06 the value that it was said to hold in relation to Gold Command and their operations. Looking at uh So, I know we're a few minutes before half past 11, but is it worth because
01:33:18 half past 11, but is it worth because I'm moving on to the the DII? Yes, which is a quite a lengthy topic. Yes. It might be a point to break. Yes. Um before we do, can I try and stop one hour running? If
01:33:31 can I try and stop one hour running? If we could have back on screen, please, MPS 0072527.
01:33:44 This was the um document that you were asked about uh right at the start of today's proceedings. Um the um action at Carmela One of the actions at Carmela Grecsko
01:33:57 One of the actions at Carmela Grecsko where on the second page you were
01:34:01 you were a Rob SNU was identified in the second paragraph.
01:34:09 You see that there? Yep. Yep. And then if we go down two further paragraphs we
01:34:17 we see reference to the lock on and there is a Rob SNU in the document I have
01:34:26 have that's blanked out as privacy. So it it looks as though um the view that you have expressed that the Rob SNU referred to there is not you
01:34:37 the Rob SNU referred to there is not you has been accepted. Thank you.
01:34:45 I see a shake of a head. Sir, I think that was seen as a mistake and was unredacted on purpose. So it's not that it was accepted that that was another individual that has been properly
01:34:57 individual that has been properly privatized. Okay. Then I I've failed in my intention. Never No, but thank you. Thank you. It's worth looking into. We'll resume in quarter of an hour.
01:39:44 Mhm.
01:41:39 Mhm.
01:43:34 Mhm.
01:47:24 Mhm.
01:51:14 Mhm.
01:53:09 Mhm.
01:53:16 Yes. Thank you.
01:53:21 Moving then to the disarmed DSE event. Um this is in relation to uh
01:53:29 uh the Excel Centre in London. Um
01:53:34 Um that hosts defence supplies and equipment international event. Is it every 2 years? I believe so. Um and effectively it's an arms
01:53:46 Um and effectively it's an arms event. Fair where companies would go there to apply their wares. Yes. Can we have on screen, please, MPS007637?
01:53:59 Behind tab C199.
01:54:04 This is 0076037.
01:54:18 This is a report in relation to space hijackers in possession of a tank. Is this your reporting?
01:54:27 It could be. Did you come across that information in in the run-up to the DSE event? I could have done, but what I would say is I do not recall
01:54:38 what I would say is I do not recall having any real interaction directly with the space hijackers or individuals of that particular collective or group. So would it be fair to assume you can't recall how you came about this information? Can we have a look at
01:54:51 Can we have a look at UCPI35185
01:54:56 page two. It's behind tab B90 of bundle three. Um but in effect it's because it's page two, it's really just the picture that I'm interested in.
01:55:08 I'm interested in. We can see here this is the tank that was referred to, is that right? I believe so. Okay, and it was being put up for sale I think the information in this document is that
01:55:19 the information in this document is that it sold for $50.
01:55:23 Were you aware of this sort of activity taking place to draw attention to the Dicey event? Not directly, no. Can you describe the atmosphere
01:55:37 Can you describe the atmosphere surrounding the event?
01:55:42 I think my my understanding would be that Dicey itself previously had been very much a target reporting by another officer that you referred to earlier on. Um so this really came to me
01:55:55 Um so this really came to me by way of the involvement of individuals that I'd been reporting on previously as part of state of emergency um and the general media that I was associated with.
01:56:06 Would you report information that came to you through another ECO? No, I would No, of course not. Um
01:56:16 Um were you aware of other events apart from the state of emergency activities that were planned? Were you aware of other events that were going to be planned? If I had been then
01:56:27 going to be planned? If I had been then I would have reported them. The tank and space hijackers, was that just one
01:56:34 just one anomaly? We don't have other reports in in relation to other I wasn't able to have reported them any further.
01:56:43 Can we have a look at page sorry, MPS 0076054?
01:56:51 Behind tab C202. Report of the the 3rd of September 2007. And it's a uh
01:57:02 uh a report about activists intending to occupy a squat in East London
01:57:09 London tomorrow evening. So, that would have been the 3rd of September 2007.
01:57:17 You know that the information in relation to that was known to about six to 10 people. Were you one of those six to 10 people that was intending to squat premises? Yes.
01:57:28 premises? Yes. And did you squat at that premises with them?
01:57:30 them? Yes.
01:57:32 Yes. And what information was there discussed about
01:57:36 about the plans for uh
01:57:40 uh demonstrating at the DSEI event? I mean, within the squat? Yeah. Um to the best of my recollection, we arrived at the squat. There were I don't recall I don't recall there being
01:57:51 recall I don't recall there being Forgive me, I don't recall there being a specific, "Let's sit down and discuss what we're going to do." I think it was very much left to the individual activists to determine what they would do once they'd arrived at
01:58:02 they would do once they'd arrived at Excel.
01:58:03 Excel. So, there was very little opportunity, in fact, for you to report anything preemptively. It was a matter of I'm I'm not certain that um Special Branch had been on
01:58:13 been on My understanding was
01:58:16 was that uh prior to this particular DSEI, and I think perhaps because of the route the fact that the officer previously been in a position to report was no longer in the field, um
01:58:27 longer in the field, um I'm not certain that Special Branch would have had available to it um any real knowledge ex- Well, there was publicly available information, but whereas it might previously have had access to other information, the
01:58:38 access to other information, the intention of activists, things that were being discussed and decided upon behind um closed doors, if you like. I'm not certain that they would have had uh what their access was.
01:58:50 In terms of the run-up to DCI was this felt to be quite a big event for the SDS?
01:58:58 SDS? I think necessarily because of it the the importance of the event and obviously it fell within a calendar of events that would have been known to special branch. So police were very much aware that this was going to be a focus
01:59:10 aware that this was going to be a focus of
01:59:12 of protest? I think it would have been unusual if activists given their their interest if they if they hadn't been interested in the event. And we can see the handler's comment on this report says that the the
01:59:24 this report says that the the information about the squatting nearby in the run up to the event was passed to D Squad and DCI Flood was informed about this
01:59:33 this that evening. So it was DCI Flood your DCI in the SDS at that time? Yes. Was he very much involved in handling information in the run up to
01:59:46 handling information in the run up to the DCI event? I'm not certain precisely what DCI Flood would have been involved in generally. Um
01:59:53 Um In the weekly meeting of bi-weekly meetings at the SDS was DCI Flood engaging with you and asking you questions Not directly. DCI Flood generally
02:00:04 generally um
02:00:05 um would be within the meeting ask the occasional question but very much seemed to observe what was being spoken about by other officers.
02:00:13 officers. So in the general meeting officers would discuss what their plans were for the upcoming week and and generally about talk about their deployments. Yes. And the SDS sorry the DSs would be
02:00:27 Yes. And the SDS sorry the DSs would be present is that right? Yes. And the DI at that point was HN72. That would need to be checked. Okay. I think it was I think it was 72 at that
02:00:38 I think it was I think it was 72 at that time. Um actually I believe so because of something that happened later on.
02:00:45 Um there's a crossover. HN53 finishes his deployment uh
02:00:52 uh uh
02:00:53 uh Sep- sorry, September 2005 and it's HN72 thereafter. So, it's
02:00:59 it's The reason The reason for the confusion is the fact that obviously HN72 then leaves the unit. We then have an another DI um comes to the unit under presumably as required by DCI Flood.
02:01:10 presumably as required by DCI Flood. Right. Okay, I see. But at the time in the run-up to uh DSE, it's HN73. Sorry, HN72. Yeah.
02:01:21 Yeah. Um, and your main handler at the time, was that HN30? I believe so. Cover officer was uh DS Bills. Is that
02:01:32 Cover officer was uh DS Bills. Is that right?
02:01:34 right? I certainly recall passing information to DS Bills verbally over the telephone. Okay.
02:01:42 The sense of how much supervision you had, how much engagement you had with back office and your managers in the run-up to D- DSEI,
02:01:53 to D- DSEI, um
02:01:54 um it can you just give us a sense of what that was like?
02:01:59 I think that the general impression I have, again, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, was that it was very much to just continue reporting as normal. Um, I remember they were particularly pleased with the fact that I picked up
02:02:12 pleased with the fact that I picked up the fact that there was a meeting to discuss possible action. I'm not certain that that information had been available to um SB previously.
02:02:25 Did they give you the sense that you need to be reporting into us as much as you can be? Absolutely. When you could. And had you been told at that point, you
02:02:36 And had you been told at that point, you act within the bounds of your authority? I was told to maintain cover. So, once I did Once I believed that I had verbally informed them that the
02:02:47 had verbally informed them that the activists were going to be going to a squat,
02:02:49 squat, there would possibly be a decision in terms of what might then happen. Um and I was told to maintain cover. When it comes to the weekend before Dicey, so I understand uh Dicey was from
02:03:02 Dicey, so I understand uh Dicey was from the 10th to the 14th of September 2007, the weekend before uh on the 8th, Saturday the 8th, you become aware
02:03:15 become aware that there's going to be an action on the Tuesday. Is that right? Possibly, yes.
02:03:22 And in terms of your reporting on that, does that then become verbal? You're phoning in as opposed to writing up reports. Is that Is that fair? It would have been, yes.
02:03:33 It would have been, yes. And why was that? Because I was out to just to maintain cover. So, that would have been the most appropriate way to to feed the information back. And was that by phone? Yes. By mobile
02:03:44 And was that by phone? Yes. By mobile phone? Yes. We know that you were arrested on the morning of Tuesday the 11th of September. And I want to just look at a few reports
02:03:56 And I want to just look at a few reports in relation to that as to how that came about. So, the first one is behind tab B107
02:04:03 B107 in bundle three. It's MPS 0526778,
02:04:09 page two.
02:04:13 And it's an SDS report on your arrest, authored by HN30, your cover officer.
02:04:22 The The date of this report is the 12th of September, so the day after your arrest, on the Wednesday.
02:04:34 And we can see key points of the summary are that Common Weal was arrested for aggravated trespass outside the Excel Centre on Tuesday the 11th of September. That's right, isn't
02:04:46 11th of September. That's right, isn't it?
02:04:46 it? That's correct. Right. So, page three, please.
02:04:54 The top paragraph.
02:05:01 As you've confirmed, it DSE has always been a focus of protest by militant anti-war autonomist globalization groups, such as Disarm,
02:05:12 globalization groups, such as Disarm, DSE,
02:05:14 DSE, um and State of Emergency and their supporters. The sense that this is a militant uh protest. Where did that come from? Where's the
02:05:26 Where did that come from? Where's the militancy in relation to their activism? I didn't write the report. I have no idea.
02:05:32 idea. Did you So, you you didn't describe them as militants? Not to the best of my No, as far as I'm aware, no. No. And it it doesn't appear that you've described them as that. Within my reckoning of my reporting? No.
02:05:44 No. Was that something that was discussed by people in back office, by people in the SDS, your managers, that saw these activists as militant? I don't know how this report was put
02:05:56 I don't know how this report was put together. I'm not I can't comment as to what was used, what information may or may not have been utilized to come up with that description. Or what indeed why that description that descriptive was actually used. Okay.
02:06:08 descriptive was actually used. Okay. Um point three, please. Paragraph The next paragraph.
02:06:18 We can see the last sentence says that intelligence gleaned by uh Common Weal has been a vital has been vital in the preparation of briefings in support of this policing
02:06:31 briefings in support of this policing operation. Did you know that the the reports that you gave and in the in the run up to dicey had been vital
02:06:40 vital in the policing operation for that. I certainly would not have been aware of the fact that they may have been considered vital, but of course I wouldn't deny the fact that clearly I'm providing information intelligence for a reason, so it may very well have been
02:06:51 reason, so it may very well have been used.
02:06:53 used. Um
02:06:54 Um the next paragraph, please. Number four.
02:07:08 We can see that an attempt would be made to try and gain access to the Excel center early on Tuesday morning. Activists would spend there the night of
02:07:20 Activists would spend there the night of Monday Tuesday in a squat and leave early in the morning make their way by public transport to the Excel center. CW contacted his cover officer
02:07:31 CW contacted his cover officer on Sunday
02:07:33 on Sunday and informed them of what he knew. In terms of what you knew, was it not much more than that that people would travel to the Excel center early in the morning and something would happen, but
02:07:46 morning and something would happen, but you weren't able to say at that stage I don't think so. I don't recall there being any specific plan that that had been put put in place. And we can see that that information was given to the CTC
02:08:00 given to the CTC the counter-terrorism command officer Commander JK who was the uh gold commander for the event. Were you aware that
02:08:12 Were you aware that uh Commander K was awaiting intelligence from you as to anything that you could tell them about what was going on? Again, not specifically, but I would but again I would I would imagine my that the information I was providing would have been
02:08:24 have been used as intelligence or be passed on to the necessary parts of the business.
02:08:29 Paragraph five, please. On number five.
02:08:36 We can see that on the Monday, the 10th of September, you again con- contacted your cover officer. Would that have been H&30 by the Monday or DS Beals? Because we understand that
02:08:49 or DS Beals? Because we understand that DS Beals was actually the cover officer over the weekend. Is that right? I would say to you is I don't have a very clear recollection of speaking to um
02:08:58 um 30, but I certainly have a recollection of speaking to Beals. Okay, so you remember phoning back office and speaking to DS Steve Beals. Sp- Sp- Specifically at one particular
02:09:09 Sp- Sp- Specifically at one particular point when about this is what's going to happen, yes. And when was that? Was that on the Sunday
02:09:15 Sunday or the Monday? Do you recall? Possibly. I can't No, I can't be specific. I'm sorry. But it was before Tuesday. Certainly, yes.
02:09:24 yes. Um
02:09:27 We can see here uh
02:09:33 CW was advised as to the parameters of his authority, even though it was not too clear what form the action might take. In terms of
02:09:44 form the action might take. In terms of you being advised as to the parameters of your authority at that stage, what were you being told? Your evidence so far is that it was simply to maintain cover.
02:09:53 cover. Yes. Were you given any specific uh guidance or or advice in terms of right, this is what you can do, this is what you can't get involved with? my understanding would have been I do not recall being given a specific set of
02:10:05 not recall being given a specific set of guidance, shall we say guidelines, this is what you can and can't do. It was merely you are to maintain cover. Now, clearly behind that I would have also have borne in mind the fact to try and avoid arrest as much as possible, try
02:10:16 avoid arrest as much as possible, try not to to find myself in a put myself in a position that might potentially cause caused for me. Okay. And presumably difficulties for the SDS as well. Yes.
02:10:28 as well. Yes. Um we can see towards the bottom of that paragraph
02:10:31 paragraph that you were going to maintain a passive role, hang back, as there would undoubtedly be a strong police presence in the area whatever time of the morning activists decided to try and gain entry
02:10:44 activists decided to try and gain entry to the Excel center. So I'm I'm not certain that's accurate. Given the tense of the way that's been written.
02:10:53 written. In what way? Do you want to explain that?
02:10:55 that? Well, I would say that the the description I would use would be specifically the word um to monitor. Passive role and hang back prep that almost reads to me as if that's been written post event and inserted as a
02:11:07 written post event and inserted as a justification. Justification for Possibly for what had happened what during the course of my arrest.
02:11:15 Okay, do you want to expand on that? That's as far as I can. That's just that's a very odd sentence to my reading here.
02:11:21 here. And this is a report that's written up post event, obviously. Um in terms of there undoubtedly being a strong police presence in the area, was that a given anyway? Was there always
02:11:33 that a given anyway? Was there always going to be a strong police presence in the area no matter what time you turned up as a group? I think it's likely.
02:11:41 And we can see uh paragraph uh number seven, please. This is the next page, page four.
02:11:55 We can see that having uh got through the gates, activists found themselves in the car park and generally milled about. Is that your recollection as to what happened? People
02:12:06 recollection as to what happened? People weren't too sure what the intention was when they gained access to the car park. No, my recollection is that there was the activists had disembarked from a bus
02:12:19 the activists had disembarked from a bus which had stopped close to the gates to the car park and they then gone off the bus and then ran started to walk and then run into the car park. I'm not quite certain I had sight of what was going on with those perhaps who'd run
02:12:30 going on with those perhaps who'd run further ahead because I'd certainly tried to ensure that I'd stayed back. There was an individual as I said as is reported here there was an individual an active fellow activist at the time claimed to have a damaged leg and so I made sure that I stood by them and was
02:12:42 made sure that I stood by them and was with them as whilst the others ran towards the center. Okay. And
02:12:47 And was there any clear intention as to what would happen once they got near the building?
02:12:52 building? Certainly to the as as far as I'm aware and recall I certainly hadn't been informed of there being any general sense of plan. That's not to say that individual individuals within the group may or may not have had specific intentions in terms of what they wish to
02:13:04 intentions in terms of what they wish to do
02:13:05 do on site.
02:13:07 on site. Was the building open by that time in the morning? I couldn't say. I understand it's about 7:00 in the morning when you first arrive. It's fairly early yes. I
02:13:18 the police carriers arrive and you're arrested fairly promptly. We can see that at paragraph eight number eight.
02:13:34 You were stopped and searched and arrested at 8:00. Does that sound about right? Was it about an hour between arriving by public transport on the
02:13:46 arriving by public transport on the buses to then gaining access to the car park and then actually being arrested? I I couldn't say as to the but it wasn't a particularly extended period of time. Do you recall being held by the police
02:13:57 Do you recall being held by the police vans for quite some time waiting for the fit officers to arrive so that everybody was then taken off the van and photographed before being taken down to custody? Yes.
02:14:13 You were charged with aggravated trespass, is that right? I believe so. And you were bailed uh to attend the Stratford Magistrates Court
02:14:23 Court at a a at a later date. Yes. And the restrictions on your bail, so the conditions were were pretty extensive, is that right? You weren't allowed to go back anywhere
02:14:34 You weren't allowed to go back anywhere near the Excel Center or the area, not allowed to uh communicate with your fellow defendants, is that right? Yes. And so, did you see that as I think
02:14:45 Yes. And so, did you see that as I think you described it in your witness statement then as a bit of a break because you couldn't actually do much in terms of your deployment at that stage. I I I certainly would say that it because of where I because of where I was located at the
02:14:56 because of where I was located at the time of arrest, certainly meant that I was not able if I had intended if I had gone on to perform to to to other things, I wouldn't have been a part of it. So, that would have been a benefit to me.
02:15:08 Um in terms of how that's set out there, is that generally an accurate description of what happened?
02:15:18 Yes.
02:15:20 We understand that at
02:15:25 at when the matter first came before the Stratford Magistrates Court,
02:15:32 did you attend that court? Yes.
02:15:35 Yes. And it was adjourned, is that right? I can't recall. off to a later date. I can't recall. I'm sorry. Do you recall whether you uh had to identify yourself and put in a plea at
02:15:47 identify yourself and put in a plea at that stage? so, yes.
02:15:50 so, yes. And when you identified yourself, did you identify yourself in your cover identity?
02:15:55 identity? Yes.
02:15:57 Yes. And why was that? To maintain cover. And so, you were acting on the instructions that you had been given. To maintain cover throughout this.
02:16:06 Had you received that information from your cover officer between being charged and
02:16:17 between being charged and attending at the magistrates court? Prior there'd been no update. So, I was continuing the instructions that I'd been given prior to that us going to Excel. So, there had been no update once you're
02:16:28 So, there had been no update once you're bailed and and you go home. Do you get Do you go home to your real home or do you go back to your cover apartment? I went to the cover apartment afterwards. And you weren't contacted any further
02:16:39 And you weren't contacted any further then by back office, were you? have been There may have been contact, but
02:16:44 but I've been I was not instructed as far as I can recall though, I was not instructed to change and change the direction which was maintain cover. Okay.
02:16:53 In terms of contact with back office, who did you have contact with? Was it your cover officer? It would have been Bills and/or 30.
02:17:02 Any contact with HN72? Not that I recall, but I recall HN72 speaking to me um when I returned to the back office on the Monday, I believe, or
02:17:13 back office on the Monday, I believe, or or rather the next attendance at the office.
02:17:17 office. So, that'd been the the 17th, probably. Yeah. Um before you attended the magistrates court. Possibly.
02:17:25 Possibly. And HN72, when he spoke to you, did he give He didn't give you any indication either as to what you should do at the mags.
02:17:32 mags. Um
02:17:37 Ultimately, we know that the matter is discontinued in October, early October. And charges were dropped against you and fellow defendants. Is that right? Yes.
02:17:51 DCI Flood had to submit a report to the CPS. Were you aware of that? Not directly at the time, no. Can you recall having a debrief interview with two officers and DC uh uh
02:18:04 interview with two officers and DC uh uh DI 72
02:18:07 DI 72 in attendance. Yes. On the 28th of September 2007. Yes.
02:18:14 Yes. And do you recall whether you were aware that that transcript or that a note of that interview was going to be sent to the CPS?
02:18:22 CPS? No. At the time it felt very much as if I was under intense scrutiny for what I think was regarded as a good piece of work. And I I I do recall being quite um
02:18:35 And I I I do recall being quite um alongside of along with other things I do recall being quite angry at the fact I was being interviewed. It felt as if I had done something wrong. Can we have a look at that interview, please? It's at MPS 0748203.
02:18:53 It's behind tab B117 in bundle four.
02:18:59 So, we can see here the date and time that it took place and who was in attendance. Page 11 of that interview, please.
02:19:20 I've got page 10 currently showing, sorry.
02:19:27 Yeah, sorry. There may be some confusion between an internal pagination and the actual digital pagination.
02:19:36 Yeah, it's actually internal page 11 that I was looking for, but it that a third of the way down we can see that you mention Emily Apple.
02:19:47 Yeah. And we see that um
02:19:53 Is she Is she one of the people that you had met beforehand and you had decided that you were going to uh uh
02:20:01 uh attend at the squat on the Monday and do an action on the Tuesday. Well, Emily was present.
02:20:17 So, bear with me one moment.
02:20:38 It's the reference to the phones. It should be on page um
02:20:45 11.
02:21:18 Sorry, sorry. This My fault. I think there are two interviews, and I've I've chosen the wrong interview to go to. Um
02:21:34 Ah, yeah. It's 0748202,
02:21:39 not 203.
02:22:33 Effectively, what I was wanting to ask you about in relation to this interview Yeah. is that what you told the interviewing officers is that
02:22:43 is that phones had been removed from you when you attend at the squat on the the Monday evening. They were taken taken off and placed into a plastic bag. Right. I
02:22:53 Right. I And you say effectively you couldn't then contact the office after that point because that would raise suspicions. You didn't have access
02:23:04 raise suspicions. You didn't have access to your phone effectively. Except I'm not I would have thought that we would have had the the phones returned to us um
02:23:10 um in the morning before we then made our way to the Excel center.
02:23:15 So, you had your phones back when I believe I believe we would have had our phones back with us when we went to the Excel center.
02:23:23 So, your recollection of events is when you attended the squat on the Monday night
02:23:29 night you all entered the squat, you handed in your phones, they were put into a plastic bag, and you didn't get those back until Must be till the morning when we before we left just before the following
02:23:40 following That conflicts with Emily Apple's evidence to this inquiry that in fact what would happen is the course of a the meeting to talk about the specific
02:23:51 meeting to talk about the specific action for a short period of time, people would leave their phones in another room, another space because the idea was that the phones could be listened to. And so that was the reason
02:24:03 listened to. And so that was the reason for having phones out of the area. But after the discussion had concluded, people would have their phones, people could leave, people could do effectively what they wanted. And so
02:24:15 do effectively what they wanted. And so the following morning I don't I don't recall that.
02:24:21 Um
02:24:24 Is that
02:24:30 Are you sure or is that a reason for you not having contacted the office? No, I have a clear recollection that I that my that my phone was placed into a
02:24:41 that my that my phone was placed into a plastic bag. See-through plastic bag. And was that when the discussion started about what was going to happen the following day? Well, I don't recall there being a a discussion about what was going to happen the following day.
02:24:55 It may be that Emily had a separate discussion with Pa. As I've already said, I didn't have much interaction with Emily. She was She was obviously an activist of some standing and she may have had a separate conversation of which I was not party to.
02:25:06 which I was not party to. So in effect, you didn't have much more to report back to the office in any event.
02:25:09 event. At the time it would obviously been very difficult unless I could make an excuse to leave there and somehow find my find my way to phone. Is it right that you could have made an excuse to leave if you said, "Well, I want to pop out to the shop. I want to
02:25:20 want to pop out to the shop. I want to go and get a drink, food." I clearly didn't. Okay. Was that open to you? Possibly. And could you also have asked for your phone back if it wasn't handed to you? I
02:25:32 phone back if it wasn't handed to you? I don't think I would have done given the fact I wasn't the only individual to to the best of my recollection. I was not the only individual to place their phone into the plastic bag. So therefore, I did would not want to attract attention by doing something
02:25:43 attract attention by doing something that was so clearly different from everyone else. Where Where was the bag put? I I can't recall.
02:25:50 recall. Um did you make any attempt to try and find your phone before the following morning? Not I recall. Okay. Could you have though? It may have attracted suspicion if I
02:26:01 It may have attracted suspicion if I had.
02:26:04 Emily Apple uh says that that simply isn't right. That's not how the group operated. Um
02:26:12 Um Oh.
02:26:13 Oh. Are you saying that she is wrong or are you saying that um well, that's not how I remember it. I could have got my phone back. I just didn't at the time because there was no purpose in doing because you didn't have
02:26:25 purpose in doing because you didn't have anything I described events to you as I perceived them at the time, as I recollect them to have been. Given that you didn't have any more intel as such to report back to the office, is that a reason why you didn't look to get your
02:26:37 reason why you didn't look to get your phone back? No, it was to absolutely maintain cover and not to attract suspicion to myself.
02:26:51 If we can go back to MPS 0748203, please.
02:27:13 And page 11 again.
02:27:21 We can see at the bottom of page 11, internal page 10. Where you say no, I think I would just like to say generally speaking, the operation on that day was very successful.
02:27:33 successful. What we managed to do was have a point where we had 20 or so activists in one location who were arrested on the first day of a major event that was going to possibly have major publicity during the
02:27:44 possibly have major publicity during the course of the week. Because of the fact that they were arrested and the fact that they can be bailed and they can have bail conditions imposed upon them, I think we saved a great deal of money
02:27:55 I think we saved a great deal of money subsequently after that because they were not free for the rest of the week to do whatever they may or may not wish to do. I regarded as a success.
02:28:08 I regarded as a success. Was that a sentiment that was shared with others in the SDS? I'm not certain. What about uh HN72 who was with you during the course of that interview?
02:28:20 during the course of that interview? Yeah, well, as far as I'm aware, I don't think he participated in obviously in the interview, but um
02:28:27 I think I can recall being told by him not to discuss general in general terms the arrest, what had happened to me during the course of this particular incident. Why was that? I'm not certain.
02:28:40 incident. Why was that? I'm not certain. I'm not sure.
02:28:44 Were you Was it suggested to you that actually this was successful because people had had such bail conditions imposed upon them? This is clearly not I
02:28:55 them? This is clearly not I I wouldn't be prepared to say that. What I would say is in the course of an interview that's an opinion I've expressed at that time. Was that your own personal opinion having not spoken to SDS managers about it? that more likely, yes.
02:29:07 that more likely, yes. And was that your sense that a suppression of protest was uh a sign of success for the SDS? I would have seen it more in terms of
02:29:18 I would have seen it more in terms of the avoidance or suppression of things of criminal damage or any kind of activities that might possibly be illegal.
02:29:23 illegal. So, it wasn't the limiting or extinguishing of a form of protest, it was the limiting or extinguishing of uh forms of
02:29:34 uh forms of uh
02:29:35 uh Look, in this in this instance because of the bell conditions that were imposed, it clearly limited the activities that those individuals who were arrested could then subsequently possibly undertake.
02:29:46 undertake. And in terms of considerations for the rights of protesters, was there a balance in your view as to what should or should not be suppressed? That would
02:29:57 or should not be suppressed? That would not be a decision for me to make. Did you have any personal view on that? Other than what I would have stated perhaps in the course of this interview contemporaneously or rather as close to
02:30:08 contemporaneously or rather as close to the events described.
02:30:14 Can we look please at a Reaper document? It's behind tab B54 bundle three MPS0526935.
02:30:26 Page 46.
02:30:38 Sorry, it's not very good um reproduction of the document.
02:30:44 We can see that this is a document regarding the circumstances surrounding your arrest. Uh
02:30:50 Uh we can see paragraph in paragraph two that
02:30:53 that the information was sent to Gold Commander Joe Kay.
02:31:00 And paragraph three, you were reminded of your the parameters of your authority. So, that's something that we've looked at previously. Um in terms of looking at the parameters
02:31:12 Um in terms of looking at the parameters of your authority, can I uh
02:31:16 can I uh ask that we move to uh page 196 of this document, please.
02:31:27 We can see here that this is a review of your authority.
02:31:37 And on page uh 200
02:31:45 we can see that it's signed by Philip Gormley, Commander, on the 20th of February, 2006. So, this is the year previously. This is
02:31:56 So, this is the year previously. This is a previous authority. So, this doesn't relate to the Dicey event.
02:32:02 event. But, it's generally uh uh uh a a a copy of your Ripper authorization for your deployment, which is reviewed and uh reauthorized on a continual basis. Okay. Okay.
02:32:15 Okay. Okay. And at page 215, please.
02:32:25 We can see that the document is signed
02:32:29 by yourself on the 2nd of March, 2006. And then by your uh uh
02:32:38 uh uh DSs, your sergeants in the SDS back office. And the point here is that it says that the under under mentioned officers understand and acknowledge the extent of
02:32:50 understand and acknowledge the extent of UCO authority, reference number, and it's got the reference number of the uh the review that was updated on the 20th of February, 2006 by the Commander of Special Branch,
02:33:02 by the Commander of Special Branch, Philip Gormley, that that page that we saw before. And And my question is, is this an example of the authorizations that were produced in relation to your
02:33:14 that were produced in relation to your deployment that you in fact did see and did sign?
02:33:20 did sign? Well, if you have a document that I've signed, then obviously I would have to accept that I that I signed it. And does that mean that you also read it and understood it? I may have understood
02:33:31 and understood it? I may have understood I may have read it and understood it at the time material time. As to whether I remembered what was included in it subsequently, I can't speak to. Is it likely that you would have read a document relating to your deployment
02:33:42 document relating to your deployment that you would have read, understood, but then subsequently forgot during the course of your deployment? That's possible.
02:33:51 And and why is that if if something as important as your authorization for your deployment is uh something that you should be aware of and understand? I can't speak to that. I
02:34:02 and understand? I can't speak to that. I would have I would only say that once that document was signed, that would be it. I would then be concentrating on the operation itself. In terms of concentrating on the operation, doesn't this document dictate
02:34:15 operation, doesn't this document dictate what you focus on and how you go about the deployment? It would appear to do so.
02:34:22 And do you accept that being aware of what's in that document, having that in your mind must dictate your activity during the course of your cover undercover deployment?
02:34:34 undercover deployment? that.
02:34:38 Can I turn to page um
02:34:47 Sorry, it's a different document. It's the
02:34:51 the witness statement of DCI Dell MPS 0749596,
02:34:59 please. At page 111.
02:35:10 And it's paragraph 176 subsection A or uh sub paragraph A, please.
02:35:21 And this is DCI Dell in his witness statement to this inquiry, commenting on a paragraph in your witness statement that says, "I've been referred to" and this is another
02:35:33 this is another composite of your RIPA authorizations, which states at paragraph 4,
02:35:41 and that's the part in relation to the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign,
02:35:55 "I don't recall ever seeing this document." Yeah. So, it's something that we addressed earlier in your evidence to this inquiry in relation to the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign, but just
02:36:06 Menezes campaign, but just my point is wider than that. It's more general as to as to whether you were a part of or aware of your RIPA authorization documents. I can only speak to documents
02:36:17 documents. I can only speak to documents that I would have signed. That you've raised up, that that which is the issue you've raised. And clearly, and I can only make a statement within there, so And in respect of what DCI Dell says
02:36:28 And in respect of what DCI Dell says about that at sub-paragraph A, do you accept that actually you would have been shown the RIPA authorization that was referred to in the paragraph above?
02:36:39 referred to in the paragraph above? And do you accept that all UCOs were shown their authorizations when they visited the office? I can only say that there's clearly a discrepancy between the view of um
02:36:52 discrepancy between the view of um Dell and myself. He goes on to say that in any event, excuse me,
02:37:05 each authorization represented the product of our management's discussion with the UCO in question about their tasking. So, it's inconceivable to me that Robert
02:37:17 So, it's inconceivable to me that Robert Hastings was not aware of his tasking. So, do you accept DCI Dells
02:37:25 DCI Dells uh witness evidence about that, or do you say
02:37:29 you say actually, I I I wasn't uh uh involved in the tasking and the decisions that were made about your deployment? I would suggest that um to the best of my recollection the decisions as to what I
02:37:40 recollection the decisions as to what I was going to be tasked would have not been made by me. That would have been made by the back office and um sergeants, senior officers, um possibly also in discussion with NSY. And would that have been relayed to you
02:37:52 And would that have been relayed to you verbally?
02:37:53 verbally? I'll make my point again. Um if there's a document that says that I've seen it, then I'm prepared to accept that I would have seen it at a material time. There is a
02:38:03 document MPS 0526805
02:38:11 page two, please.
02:38:15 So, that's the document that was referred to here at um that you referred to in your witness statement.
02:38:23 And what we can see here is a an index of some of the the reviews
02:38:31 of your authority or your authorization. And it appears in relation to the initial application, the authorization for your deployment.
02:38:46 And the reviews and updates that you had initialed them. Does that record help
02:38:57 Does that record help in terms of your memory of having looked at authorizations and signed this chart? Can I Can I ask you, is this document signed? Is there a signature on page two, or is it signed anywhere by me?
02:39:08 two, or is it signed anywhere by me? These are your initials, so it's your initials under the black box. Those are not handwritten initials, are they?
02:39:15 they? No. So, underneath these have been redacted out. Right. Okay. Um so, what it will be is a manuscript initial
02:39:23 initial R H and that's what's been put over the top just so that your manuscript signature or initialing No, that's fine. In which case, then I would have to accept that I've signed that document. And would that indicate that you have
02:39:35 And would that indicate that you have actually seen and understood the RIPA authorizations? No, but it would just say that I've signed that document. So, what was the purpose of you signing the document?
02:39:47 the document? Just an acknowledgement, I suspect. Of what? The document. The RIPA authorization. The document. I mean, This document. Yeah.
02:39:57 Yeah. This This document obviously doesn't tell you anything other than the fact that there is an authorization or a review or an update. Would you have What was the process of you coming to sign this document? I can't recall.
02:40:09 I can't recall. Do you have any recollection of being in the back office being shown a review and then being asked to sign this index? No.
02:40:21 So, what was your understanding as to why you were signing this document? I I can't recall.
02:40:30 Given your lack of memory about it, is is it fair to assume that it would be because you had been shown the authorization and that had been discussed with you by the DCI or DI of
02:40:42 discussed with you by the DCI or DI of the
02:40:43 the or a manager of the SDS? I can't say.
02:40:58 Um
02:41:02 is it right to say we don't have an authorization for your participation in any more serious
02:41:12 uh uh uh uh Is it right to say that you didn't you weren't aware of of any authorization to participate in anything beyond very minor instances of
02:41:25 beyond very minor instances of criminality that arose at the time? I certainly can't recall ever being directed to to be able to participate in serious crime. What was your understanding as to the level of crime that you could
02:41:37 level of crime that you could participate in without further authorization uh of of participation in crime?
02:41:46 At the time, it would probably involve something along the lines of uh low-level criminal damage, perhaps. But the idea being always to avoid placing yourself in a position where perhaps you could engage in crime.
02:41:57 perhaps you could engage in crime. Was there any sense that that sense that you needed to contact back office if you were aware there was a risk of you being involved in a criminal offense? Not that I recall.
02:42:09 criminal offense? Not that I recall. So, for instance, taking the March 19th uh event,
02:42:15 uh event, your understanding that there would be some involvement in spray-painting slogans on Labour Party premises, was there a sense that you had to contact back office to let them know you
02:42:27 contact back office to let them know you were going to be involved in this or I think at the time I think at the time my sense would have been that I would have regarded that as being something that was allowable because it was would have been minor, shall we say.
02:42:38 minor, shall we say. And what about aggravated trespass? Was that something that you understood to be allowable in your undercover role?
02:42:47 No, I wouldn't say that. I was arrested for aggravated trespass. That doesn't mean that I went there expecting to be arrested for aggravated trespass. No. Did you have the sense that you needed
02:43:00 Did you have the sense that you needed to
02:43:01 to apply
02:43:04 apply preemptively for authorization to participate in more more than minor criminality prior to the Dicey event? That would have been
02:43:16 to the Dicey event? That would have been handled by the office. You were never advised by your cover officer that Okay, well, if this is going to be anything more than
02:43:23 more than you know
02:43:24 you know fly posting of my recollection, I was told maintain cover.
02:43:29 cover. No indication that there needed to be prior authorization for a for any criminality.
02:43:45 Can we turn to MPS 0526770,
02:43:49 please? It's behind tab B115 in bundle four.
02:43:59 And this is a discussion document for a CPS meeting, so post your arrest. It's understood that DCI Flood was to meet with the CPS to discuss what was going to happen about this
02:44:12 was going to happen about this uh this arrest and the charge. And uh DCI Flood Det- Detective Superintendent McKinney had a discussion and these were the the
02:44:23 had a discussion and these were the the notes uh in relation to that.
02:44:28 And at paragraph three
02:44:39 No, sorry. Page three.
02:44:50 Yeah. Page three, paragraph four, please.
02:44:53 please. It appears that there was a breakdown in communications between the your manager and the team that decided to arrest and charge such a large number. You see that
02:45:04 charge such a large number. You see that in the middle of the paragraph there. Was that ever communicated to you as
02:45:12 as a problem in this event? I don't recall that this particular point being communicated to me, but what I will say is I think it became I it became clear
02:45:23 I it became clear that Maya being arrested at Dicey would had caused some issues. There were clearly there were all issues already, I believe, in the back office with personalities
02:45:34 personalities and new individuals having joined the the back office. And by new individuals you're talking about DCI Flood and and Detective Superintendent McKinney essentially or
02:45:45 McKinney essentially or Yes.
02:45:46 Yes. and and
02:45:48 and and was there a sense that uh
02:45:52 uh DI 72 and perhaps HM30 or cover officer and DS Beals who was on uh cover that weekend
02:46:02 weekend prior to Dicey were being hauled over the coals for getting into this situation where we've got an officer who's now up in the magistrates court facing charges of aggravated trespass.
02:46:14 facing charges of aggravated trespass. My recollection is there was certainly tension
02:46:17 tension between those individuals.
02:46:20 Was there a discussion that included you about the fallout from this arrest? I don't recall there being one. If you have notes of one or a notification one,
02:46:31 have notes of one or a notification one, I'm happy to have a look at that. No, we don't.
02:46:35 don't. Purely on your recollection.
02:46:39 I mean, obviously we've got the interview. Yeah. There was various things you were involved with I think the I think the interview the purpose of this the interview in many respects will be kept You've mentioned obviously the fact that it was going to pass the CPS. I've said that I don't I wasn't I say
02:46:51 I've said that I don't I wasn't I say that I wasn't aware of that fact. Um in many ways, I would have regarded that as a debrief. I think once I've been arrested, the sense was that I was not to speak of the fact again.
02:47:03 And the sense was that management were going to sort this out. Uh well, there was there was clearly activity in the back office relating to my arrest, but I clearly wasn't involved uh directly in that.
02:47:33 Can we come now then to the reaction of Dicey arrests in London amongst your uh group?
02:47:41 uh group? It's MPS 007 6348,
02:47:46 6348, please.
02:47:47 please. Behind tab behind tab at C209 in bundle five. It's a report of 17th of October 2007.
02:48:00 And here we're looking at uh the subsequent legal proceedings.
02:48:14 And then participated plea at the magistrates.
02:48:27 So So, as is your evidence, you attended at the magistrates court. You You were there, that's right, isn't it?
02:48:36 it? Yes. And um you were party to legal advice as a result of that. Is that fair to say? I recall being part of discussion with the individuals that named within this report. And what about with the legal advisers
02:48:48 And what about with the legal advisers who were at at court representing the group?
02:48:52 group? Unless it's stated there's something stated contrary to what I'm about to say in this report, my recollection is that I spoke the individual solicitor lawyer there spoke
02:49:03 individual solicitor lawyer there spoke individually to each individual. Okay. And effectively, was that one solicitor that was representing a group of you the whole group? Possibly.
02:49:14 whole group? Possibly. And albeit that you were um advised independently, separately, was it fair to assume that you were all receiving similar advice? I
02:49:25 you were all receiving similar advice? I remember it feeling yes, but I also recall it felt very strange that an individual just happened to be there to say that I'm going to uh
02:49:33 uh represent you individuals for free.
02:49:37 Uh is this in relation to the barrister that says that she was going to represent pro bono? Yeah. Okay. That then becomes the subject of some discussion, doesn't it? If you want to read the rest of this report to
02:49:48 to read the rest of this report to refresh your memory in relation to that. Thank you. If we can have the other uh the other two pages on screen, please.
02:50:30 Okay. Which particular part would you like me to address? It's in particular in relation to the uh the legal advice. Um and and what happened at at court.
02:50:41 Um and and what happened at at court. This obviously quite is quite an extensive report that you've produced on this occasion. And significant reporting on legal representation
02:50:52 representation at court. Is that fair to say? Yes. And at the end of paragraph two on page three
02:51:09 you report about activists from Brighton particularly keen to discuss the feasibility of launching a legal action against the police.
02:51:22 And given that that is in relation to a civil action, a potential civil action against the police did you understand that there would be some
02:51:32 some interest in that from the SDS because it related to the MPS? Because it related to the active acts of the activities of the activists who've been arrested.
02:51:43 Was there any discussion that you had with your cover officers in relation to this report? Not that I can recall. Um such detail about the legal process,
02:51:55 Um such detail about the legal process, future and past legal dealings of the activists and their lawyers is potentially crossing that boundary into legal privilege, isn't it?
02:52:07 legal privilege, isn't it? I would say that this at the moment speaks in quite general terms. And in terms of the thought of the prospect of bringing a civil action, although it's not actually reporting
02:52:19 although it's not actually reporting advice from lawyers it's would you say that's a It's It's reporting boundary.
02:52:25 boundary. I would not say I would agree that. I would say this is a a report of the general intent. It doesn't go into the specifics that might possibly follow. Did you have any sense that this is
02:52:36 Did you have any sense that this is nothing to do with public order events? This is to do with legal proceedings, legal advice, and so should not form part of an SDS report.
02:52:47 part of an SDS report. At the time, no. Subsequently, would you have a different view on that? Possibly.
02:52:53 Possibly. In what way? Well, I have um my thoughts about the activities of the SDS are obviously quite different now than they would have been whilst I was deployed as a member of the unit. And so, in hindsight, looking back, do
02:53:05 And so, in hindsight, looking back, do you think that you should have had more direction as to what should and should not have been reported on? I think so, but I would also say that unless you can there's any evidence to the contrary, I'm not certain that that was taken up
02:53:16 I'm not certain that that was taken up with me.
02:53:17 with me. Okay.
02:53:21 Um MPS 007 6336
02:53:26 6336 behind tab C207, please.
02:53:30 please. So, report of the 11th of October 2007. Again, it's a The The title is the continuing legal fallout from Dicey.
02:53:41 fallout from Dicey. And what's reproduced here is a letter that is sent from a solicitor concerning her concerns about the barrister that
02:53:52 her concerns about the barrister that was at court.
02:53:57 Pupil barrister, I think, who um was not aware of her own duties to the court. Um
02:54:06 Um And in terms of setting that out, does it go into a further page, page three?
02:54:14 Do you recall reproducing the letter that was sent in a in this report? recall doing so, no. Do you accept that this is your report and therefore you must have done?
02:54:25 you must have done? I accept that it could be my report, yes.
02:54:28 yes. And And again, similar question in terms of the
02:54:31 of the the the intrusive nature of of that in terms of legal proceedings, do you accept that that is something that should not have formed part of an SDS report?
02:54:40 report? At the time, my view would have been to report any and all intelligence that was available to me.
02:54:50 Okay, so you didn't have an awareness at at that stage. have I would have I have If this was my report, I've reported it in on the basis of the fact that this may obviously be of interest to NSY. It's available to me, relates to the
02:55:02 It's available to me, relates to the activists or to the the the event. So, I'm reporting it back to NSY so they can be aware of this. That's all I want to ask you on in relation to DSEI or DICE. Um can I ask
02:55:15 relation to DSEI or DICE. Um can I ask you now about authorization cancellation documents? So, we're getting to the end of your deployment now. Okay.
02:55:22 Okay. Um MPS0526935
02:55:28 behind tab B54. It's a document we've looked at a composite of documents we've looked at before. These are your REAPER um
02:55:34 um authorizations.
02:55:38 No, the these came up previously, didn't they? It was just the front sheet and then you they we took them off and didn't explore these any further. That That's right. So, it's a it's a composite. It's the the authorizations, the reviews, and the updates. There are
02:55:49 the reviews, and the updates. There are two main composites that we have and this is a 238-page document that addresses your uh authorizations from November 2005 to to the end of your deployment in
02:56:00 to the end of your deployment in December 2007. Page three, please. This lists at very front of the the composite. So, it it's taken from files,
02:56:11 composite. So, it it's taken from files, your back office files. Um if we can enlarge that a little bit, please. It's looking at um your CHIS or ripper authorizations.
02:56:24 um your CHIS or ripper authorizations. Um
02:56:26 And what we can see here is a list of associates. Is this a document that you would have been familiar with? Possibly.
02:56:35 Possibly. And in terms of your associates, um the list there, is that fairly accurate according to your recollection of your deployment? I'm not certain about suicide bomber as
02:56:46 I'm not certain about suicide bomber as a descriptive. I would not I'm not sure where I would apply that. I didn't write this list, presumably.
02:56:54 We know that this list is is written towards the end of your deployment, so it's looking back retrospectively over the the years that you were deployed. In terms of a suicide bomber and an
02:57:07 In terms of a suicide bomber and an accomplice who was found we understand was found dead a few weeks a couple of weeks after the event in 2003. Are you surprised to see them at the top
02:57:18 Are you surprised to see them at the top of your list of associates? Yes. Associates, the word associates to me would tend to imply there's a direct and immediate some form of a direct immediate relationship. I never met
02:57:29 immediate relationship. I never met the two named individuals as far as I'm aware never met the two named individuals at the top of that list. So, I'd be hesitant to describe them as associates. And in fact, I think they died about a year and a half before you were deployed. So, that's fair to say you
02:57:42 deployed. So, that's fair to say you didn't meet them. In terms of top billing on this list of associates, are you surprised to see them there sat next to the name of Athif Choudry? I think there's clearly a
02:57:54 I think there's clearly a I'm surprised to see those two names there
02:57:57 there uh under
02:58:00 uh under the word associates. And given what we know about those two people, that they weren't members of ISM London, um and had no interaction at all save for a cup of tea
02:58:13 interaction at all save for a cup of tea on that event that we saw reported in the the BBC news article. Well, that's reported on the BBC, I think.
02:58:19 think. Um
02:58:22 You You weren't so aware of them otherwise. I can't speak to why they're on this list. Um
02:58:30 Um Do you reckon We heard from Athif Choudry last week about the horror that he felt about seeing his name listed in a Reaper document against these two
02:58:41 a Reaper document against these two people. Do you Do you unders- Do you have some recognition about why that would be? Certainly. And do you recognize that as a a
02:58:52 a a a race that there's a racial element to this in that there's a British Asian man with Muslim background sat there as top billing in a list of
02:59:04 sat there as top billing in a list of associates in your deployment that infiltrated ISM London. I go back to the answer I've given previously, which I'm very surprised to see those two names under the word associates. And I can
02:59:16 under the word associates. And I can understand Mr. Choudry's upset of having see- seeing his name um in this list, which I've as I've previously said, obviously I didn't prepare. Do you recognize that it
02:59:28 Do you recognize that it reflects
02:59:30 reflects a racial profiling? That's not No, I That's not a question that uh
02:59:35 that uh I don't think that's the case.
02:59:39 Do you think that the decisions of whoever made this list, and I take it you didn't submit this list? Well, as I said, I've not looked at that list. That's not a list that I recall ever putting together.
02:59:50 putting together. So, I would I would ask the question, whoever was responsible for that list, the questions that you're asking perhaps would be better put to them rather than me. Now, I don't say that disrespectfully. In terms of
03:00:01 In terms of the the presentation of this, though, can you accept this personally from from looking at this and your understanding about racial profiling, about your
03:00:12 about racial profiling, about your understanding of uh uh uh uh racist ideas of I'm not sure I would accept what you've just described there. Racist racist racist profiling and
03:00:24 Racist racist racist profiling and you then went on to say Well, the the the the the sense that the decision to make this list in the way that it has been drafted
03:00:36 drafted Do you accept that there will have been some racial element to that? No, I Racist ideas of who is a threat. No. What I What I suggest, as I've said to you, I'm surprised to see those two
03:00:47 you, I'm surprised to see those two names under the heading of the title Associates. And I think that the questions you're asking will be better put to the individual who's responsible, whoever it was, for writing that list. Would you recognize at all that this is
03:00:58 Would you recognize at all that this is an example of institutionalized racism? How an innocent Asian
03:01:07 Asian British Asian Muslim man with Muslim background can be finding his name in a list like this. No. It's unfavorable treatment of Atif Chaudry, isn't it? It's certainly a
03:01:19 Chaudry, isn't it? It's certainly a questionable list from what I can see. Do you recognize that it is unfavorable to him?
03:01:24 to him? I would if in Mr. Chaudry's position, I would certainly be asking questions as to why
03:01:30 to why Obviously, there's an impact in terms of having your name associated with those two other names. And given that it is unfavorable to him, you you you rightly say questions should be asked about that and why
03:01:44 with the lack of any other evidence as to why these two people should be at the top of your list of associates, can that be
03:01:50 be list.
03:01:52 list. or a list in of your relating to your employment can it be assumed that there must be something
03:01:58 something here to do with uh race and religious background. No. What I would say is that that there you a list here. I've said to you presented to you with my feelings on
03:02:09 presented to you with my feelings on this.
03:02:10 this. I think what needs to happen here is that whoever was responsible putting this list together, I don't recall doing so, would have to be have these questions put to them so they can explain why this list has been presented in the way that it has.
03:02:22 in the way that it has. Would you accept that back office uh uh decisions around targeting for your deployment into ISM London was influenced by institutional racism?
03:02:35 was influenced by institutional racism? No.
03:02:37 No. Why not? As I've said to you before, when I think that we raised this um previously, for me institutional racism is a particularly difficult term. I think it's too simplistic a descriptive
03:02:48 it's too simplistic a descriptive for for things that are far more complex.
03:02:55 Would you accept that the SDS interest in ISM London was because of
03:03:03 of was because of links to Palestine, not because of links to terrorism? I think there's a possibility it could have been both, but certainly it's fairly clear given in the name of the
03:03:14 fairly clear given in the name of the organization that yes, there's clearly a link to Palestine. And your operation didn't uncover any links to terrorism, did it? Other than I think as we've we've
03:03:25 Other than I think as we've we've covered, the there was a document that I think I discovered that was passed in where two names were featured. They were passed on. I certainly don't recall finding any evidence of terrorism within ISM.
03:03:46 Um finally, very quickly, um in terms of
03:03:53 a a summary, there's a quarterly summary of the intelligence that you provide in the last 3 months of your deployment. is a MPS 0525935.
03:04:07 Page 89, please.
03:04:25 0525 935
03:04:41 I think it's 0526935.
03:04:45 Is it sir? Thank you very much.
03:04:55 Yes, that's right.
03:05:07 Oh, that's I'm so sorry. That's the document we're in. Yes.
03:05:11 Yes. Um
03:05:12 Um page 89
03:05:17 So, this is a a document that relates the quarterly summary of intelligence for your
03:05:26 for your uh deployment the last 3 months of your deployment.
03:05:34 And we can see set out in the key points summary the detail of uh the high points.
03:05:46 I Yeah, there's an obvious problem there, isn't there? I can see it immediately. Sorry, what are you relating to what you're referring to? Key points summary, last point.
03:05:57 last point. Commonwealth supplies ongoing coverage of threats to the MPS and its staff resulting from the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. We've discussed this previously. Did you provide any ongoing coverage in
03:06:09 Did you provide any ongoing coverage in relation to that? The reporting that I think have it that you would have had available to you, which hopefully is all of my reporting. Um if there had been reporting on that by me, then it would have been available
03:06:20 by me, then it would have been available to you for review. In terms of the coverage that we have, it's in relation to individuals that have had some contact with the campaign. Do you accept that? We discussed this in
03:06:31 Do you accept that? We discussed this in regards to Iced Ramin previously. But this was an individual who was an activist and known as an activist, and there was some kind of connection, but it wasn't reported on the campaign in terms of the campaign's intentions,
03:06:42 terms of the campaign's intentions, etc.
03:06:43 etc. And it appears what has been then written up in the summary of your operation is something that
03:06:52 that appears to these are documents that are used to justify your operation, and that has been seen as something that is noteworthy enough to put in to this summary.
03:07:03 to this summary. Do you accept that actually it is your evidence is this is wrong, and I
03:07:10 and I is it your evidence you didn't uh provide ongoing coverage to that extent? So, my initial response would be um I'm not the author of this document, presumably. No, you're not. Okay.
03:07:22 presumably. No, you're not. Okay. I see that point there, and I would say at the very released, I am shocked and surprised to see that as a point within this document in relation to my operation.
03:07:34 Because you say effectively it's inaccurate. Yes.
03:07:51 And can we look at the detail, please, in paragraph two, point two in the in the detail? Um
03:08:01 What we can What it says that the period under review saw a continuation of the highly fragmented nature of the London autonomous anarchist scene. No one organizational group has occupied the
03:08:12 organizational group has occupied the ground vacated by the now defunct Wombles in early 2006. State of emergency, once seen as a possible successor, has largely disintegrated around the
03:08:24 has largely disintegrated around the usual and it goes on to the next page.
03:08:36 usual issues of interpersonal politics. Were you involved in interpersonal politics within State of emergency?
03:08:49 You would have to define for me what you mean by interpersonal politics. Was there any sense as an SDS officer you infiltrated activist groups with an intention of causing some
03:09:01 with an intention of causing some discord to dis- to to
03:09:05 to uh uh
03:09:05 uh uh precipitate the disintegration of an activist group? I think I think what I would say is if I'd been directed to do that, then I would have done so.
03:09:24 Can I ask you about paragraph six, please?
03:09:31 And it's in relation to Fitwatch, the organization that was set up by Emily Apple and Privacy. And in terms of the uh uh summary in relation to that.
03:09:49 Well, that's clearly inaccurate, isn't it?
03:09:51 it? I think we can both agree instantly there's a clear problem with that paragraph. And what's the inaccuracy? Well, let's be clear. Um
03:10:00 CW knows these two activists well. Well, I would simply suggest that they look at the intelligence record that's available, the archive, and then look to see how many reports were submitted by me where Emily Apple's
03:10:11 were submitted by me where Emily Apple's name features and two activists, the two activists and the private So, Emily Apple and privacy. If I knew them well, then presumably there would be a a number of intelligence reports available that
03:10:22 intelligence reports available that would be able to support that assertion. And what about the the the suggestion that you've been able to give regular updates on the course of the campaign, that being the Fitwatch campaign,
03:10:33 that being the Fitwatch campaign, which have been fed into the Public Order Branch? I make Again, I'd make a similar point. It would be again, assuming that the inquiry has been given access to a complete archive,
03:10:45 been given access to a complete archive, it would be very easy for you to go through and see what information was available that referred to Fitwatch and myself.
03:10:54 myself. And presumably there there would be no benefit of any reporting by you because the whole campaign itself was something that was played out in front of police cameras. So, that was the the point of
03:11:05 cameras. So, that was the the point of it.
03:11:05 it. Well, I can't comment on that, but I would simply say that as far as I'm aware, I didn't report on Fitwatch on Fitwatch, yeah. I think I think that's a fair comment.
03:11:16 And so, are you saying that this is inaccurate and it's exaggerated? Well, I'm saying that I didn't write this report, but then again, there are certainly questions that arise as a result of this paragraph and the way
03:11:27 result of this paragraph and the way it's been written. What about the intelligence that there are aspirations to discover FIT officers' personal details with a view to targeting their homes and families?
03:11:40 to targeting their homes and families? Is that anything that you reported? If I forgive me We don't have any intelligence that you did report suggest that I didn't report that. And that that
03:11:50 that that doesn't relate to me or my operation. Okay, that doesn't ring true. No. To you. That's not something you verbally provided. Not that I recall, no. And the suggestion that Emily Apple and privacy would want to target people in
03:12:02 privacy would want to target people in their own homes and families, does that ring true knowing even the little that you do know about Emily Apple and the the the the person that set up Fitwatch? I can't comment on
03:12:13 that set up Fitwatch? I can't comment on that.
03:12:20 Her evidence is that she never had any intention to target homes and families. It's simply untrue.
03:12:29 untrue. I go back to my earlier response. I don't wish to sound repetitive, but there should surely be an archive of intelligence available. If there's reporting there, this looks like the sort of information that
03:12:41 like the sort of information that presumably would be would have been considered important and perhaps would have been like they would be able to source appropriately. And from what you've said in our interaction here, you've not been able to link that information or intelligence or I'll call it information for this
03:12:52 or I'll call it information for this purposes of this exchange here to me directly on my on my cover. So therefore, I would my view on that would be I was not responsible for that information. And you as a witness today don't have
03:13:03 And you as a witness today don't have any further evidence to give that would contradict Emily Apple's evidence on that. Well, I'm I haven't seen Emily Apple's evidence. I've not read it. So I can only comment such as I've been told
03:13:14 can only comment such as I've been told today during the course of our exchange. Yeah.
03:13:16 Yeah. She says it's untrue. Can you counteract that?
03:13:21 No. Thank you. Sorry, I I made that clear. No.
03:13:33 Can I go quickly then to paragraph eight? Got got eye on the time, sir, but if you could just finish with this document.
03:13:42 Paragraph eight. Uh talks about uh No Borders. And involvement with that group.
03:13:56 And their linking with uh uh
03:13:59 uh other campaigns. It's described as the absolutely critical importance of having this form of organizational cross-issue linkage available to desk officers cannot be
03:14:11 available to desk officers cannot be overstated.
03:14:15 Should we Do you want to pass this down and we can go through this line by line with the help? So, I think there might be important in this case. Uh you can do that. So, let's go through.
03:14:25 So, MB can appear to be rather disorganized and in effect ineffective. I think that that's arguable. I think the most important thing is that where they were situated meant If you look at the whole my operation in the concept, the wider concept, it's fairly
03:14:37 concept, the wider concept, it's fairly clear that I was able to operate across more than one group. So, that would suggest there was some truth in that in being placed in those particular positions. And the fact, of course, that that the activists
03:14:48 course, that that the activists themselves other than the organized Generally speaking, as I've said before, in the organized left um it's possible for an individual to move between various campaigns according to their own particular interests.
03:15:00 particular interests. And in terms of that cross-linkage um
03:15:03 um the particular ones that are noted here in relation to trade union activity and the low wages for migrant workers, which presumably links back to the Justice for
03:15:14 presumably links back to the Justice for Cleaners
03:15:16 Cleaners uh campaign that you reported on. Which one we spoke about? I I think I I said to you that it was about the issue of protest. Yeah.
03:15:25 That being essential for the the the the desk at the uh Special Branch at the time and again it's relating to the MPS
03:15:37 and again it's relating to the MPS uh
03:15:39 uh threat to MPS staff resulting from the Demetrius Demetrius case. forgive me but I actually object to the fact I find that offensive. What do you find offensive? The fact that it says such as a threat to the MPS
03:15:50 that it says such as a threat to the MPS staff resulting from the Demetrius case. I find that offensive in the sense that I have said and we've explored this and I make the case again. You have you should have an archive available to you hopefully full archive of the
03:16:02 hopefully full archive of the intelligence reports that I submitted and I would ask you this has been included here and it seems to be saying that I reported that. I find that offensive. Um the point of me drawing your
03:16:13 Um the point of me drawing your attention to this is
03:16:16 is to ask you is this accurate and I think your evidence is no it's wrong in relation to Demetrius. Well I would suggest yes that's the case. Okay.
03:16:26 Okay. So we've we've got that point already. That is false you're saying. Yes. In relation to the the wider cross-linking with other campaigns low wage workers trade unions your noble orders
03:16:39 trade unions your noble orders group which relatively disorganized it it appears from this report. What I'm asking you is this report itself this summary of your operation is
03:16:51 itself this summary of your operation is it a
03:16:51 it a Somebody's summary of the my operation not mine. Yeah not yours but is it accurate?
03:16:56 accurate? Is this a fair reflection of a summary of your deployment the last three months of your deployment? Not my deployment in its entirety and if you're talking speaking about the whole document the bits we've looked at there
03:17:07 document the bits we've looked at there are clear I have clear issues with it. Okay. This is a document about the last three months of your deployment. Okay. Is this a fair a fair representation of your deployment? No.
03:17:16 No. Is it exaggerated or actually just false in your your opinion? From what we've discussed in the last few moments I would say I have clear concerns about the accuracy of this document. Thank you.
03:17:30 Uh finally, paragraph nine.
03:17:37 You see that it reports that Intel reports have been essential to desk officers threat assessments and goal planning.
03:17:45 planning. And it's emphasized that it is as useful to be of able to report that a group or wide part of the movement is not looking to become involved in an action or protest as it is to be able to say that
03:17:57 protest as it is to be able to say that it is. Now, We've touched on this previously. Your evidence previously was that that was part of my operation. In terms of how intelligence would be understood, yes, there would be a clear value in
03:18:09 yes, there would be a clear value in being able to give a negative as much as a positive. Excuse me. So, you're saying actually that's that's an accurate part in terms of how you fed the value of your operation for
03:18:21 the value of your operation for Gold Command and police. I think that I think
03:18:25 think the sentence begins it must be emphasized. I think that would be something that would accord with my understanding of intelligence and how it's supposed to function. Okay.
03:18:34 Uh thank you. That's all I want to ask you on that. Thank you. Then we will resume at 10:00 past 2:00. Thank you. One more question.
03:21:19 Mhm.
03:27:04 Mhm.
03:28:59 Mhm.
03:38:34 Mhm.
03:40:29 Mhm.
03:44:19 Mhm.
03:46:14 Mhm.
03:48:09 Mhm.
03:50:04 Mhm.
03:51:59 Mhm.
03:57:44 Mhm.
03:59:39 Mhm.
04:03:29 Mhm.
04:05:24 Mhm.
04:08:09 I